Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

Last modified 8 years ago

#170 closed design (fixed)

Do not require "updates" relation for specs that register status codes or method names

Reported by: julian.reschke@… Owned by:
Priority: normal Milestone: 07
Component: p2-semantics Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:

Description

In Part 2 we currently state for both:

"Any document registering new method names should be traceable through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to this document."

I think we inherited that from RFC2817, Section 7.1. (<​http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817#section-7.1>)

IMHO this doesn't make sense; the "updates" relation shouldn't be used just because a specification uses a well-defined extension point that already has a registry.

Proposal: remove the requirement from sections 2.1 (method names) and 4.1 (status codes).

Attachments (1)

170.diff​ (5.5 KB) - added by julian.reschke@… 10 years ago.
proposed change for part 2

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (6)

Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…

proposed change for part 2

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 07

accepted for incorporation

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [591]:

Do not require "updates" relation for specs that define new status codes or method name (related to #170)

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…

Erratum wrt status codes raised against RFC 2817: ​http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1801

comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by mnot@…

  • Priority set to normal
  • Severity changed from Candidate WG Document to Active WG Document
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.