Please see attached review. I haven't cc'ed the IETF or IESG since my comment is only a *minor* process issue, but this can be forwarded as you think fit. If the IESG can see a way round it consistent with RFC 2026, that would be fine by me.
Brian
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this document. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: RFC2818.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2012-06-09 (updated) IETF LC End Date: 2012-06-15 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Technically ready but there's a minor process issue. -------- Comment: -------- The proposed action is to reclassify RFC 2818 (HTTP Over TLS) to Proposed Standard. This seems entirely appropriate from a technical point of view. Process issue: -------------- RFC 2818 carries Informational boilerplate. I can't find anything in RFC 2026 that makes it impossible to promote a document to standards track for this reason, but it may confuse people and RFC 1796 doesn't help, because it says that "the status is reproduced on the first page of the RFC itself". N.B. RFC 5785 erroneously claims to update RFC 2616 and 2818. Could the RFC Editor be asked to delete these mistakes from the RFC indexes? Brian
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
