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.