On 05/03/2012 01:59 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
This seems reasonable to me, except would it be appropriate to
have this kind of document dependency? Would it be more
appropriate to just reference RFC2616?
Up to you. HTTPBIS is in the process of putting the HTTPBIS specs
through WG LC so there is light at the end of the tunnel for them
popping out as RFCs. I referred to the HTTPBIS document because it's
easier to find an appropriate reference but similar material is in
2616.
If the reference to HTTPBIS is informative, then we are not gated
by HTTPBIS reaching the terminal state of RFC assignment.
So the question to Rich A. would be whether he thinks that the
reference we put in fits better as Informative or Normative.
If the former, then we can move ahead without any delays.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
