Re: Last Call: <status-change-http-status-code-308-ps-01.txt> (HTTP Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect) to Proposed Standard (from Experimental))

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2014/12/02 01:38, The IESG wrote:

The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
Group WG (iesg)

Does this mean that the IESG received a request from themselves? In that case, couldn't they just write "the IESG plans to..."? Or is this a mistake?

Regards,   Martin.

P.S.: I approve of the reclassification itself.


to consider the following document:
- 'HTTP Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect) to Proposed Standard'
   <status-change-http-status-code-308-ps-01.txt> from Experimental

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-12-29. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

In 2012, when RFC 7238 was approved, we went for Experimental because it
was, indeed, an experiment.  Since then, it has been implemented in Firefox and
Chrome, and Safari already supported it due to their default handling of 3xx +
Location.

The experiment is, therefore, over, and was a success.  This action moves RFC
7238 to the Standards Track, as Proposed Standard.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-http-status-code-308-ps/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-http-status-code-308-ps/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.








[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]