On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Based on my understanding, this seems like a normative reference. If
someone thinks otherwise, please say so and I'll be happy to add a
reference to HTTPbis instead :)
Rich
>
> 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
