![(please configure the [header_logo] section in trac.ini)](https://www.ietf.org/images/ietflogotrans.gif)
#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)
Change History (6)
Changed 10 years ago by julian.reschke@…
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@…
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 7 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.
proposed change for part 2