Subject: Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 13:54:13 +1000

There seems to be broad support for this in the WG, Barry.

Regards,

On 28 Jul 2014, at 12:40 pm, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> In Toronto, we discussed moving RFC7238 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7238> from Experimental to Proposed Standard, now that it is implemented in most browsers.
> 
> The WG in the room seemed to think that doing so is a good idea; anyone here have a reason to believe otherwise?
> 
> See also:
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-http-status-code-308-ps/
> 
> Cheers,
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:14:13 -0400

> There seems to be broad support for this in the WG, Barry.

Great.  The only thing about using the status-change document for
this, as has come up in the apps-discuss conversation about moving RFC
1846 from Experimental to Standards Track, is that the Experimental
document has this boilerplate in it:

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
   community.  It has received public review and has been approved for
   publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

This is in contrast with the boilerplate for Standards Tack documents:

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Unless we really want to experiment with the process and try using the
status-change document to give us a Proposed Standard with boilerplate
that says it's Experimental, I suggest this:

- Julian knocks off a quick draft-ietf-httpbis-7238-to-ps draft, which
is exactly the same as the RFC except for the intended status.
- Mark approves it as a working group document, and immediately does a
quick shepherd writeup and publication request.
- If we do this tout de suite, we can get it approved on the 4 Sept
telechat, which will be even faster than with the status-change
document.

Barry

>> In Toronto, we discussed moving RFC7238 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7238>
>> from Experimental to Proposed Standard, now that it is implemented in most
>> browsers.
>>