search

httpwg / httpbis-issues

1 stars 1 forks source link

moving 2616/2068/2145 to historic #544

Closed mnot closed 3 years ago

mnot commented 10 years ago 
This HTTP/1.1 specification obsoletes and moves to historic status RFC 2616, its predecessor RFC 2068, and RFC 2145 (on HTTP versioning).

Please, no, it doesn't (and shouldn't) move any of these documents to Historic (even if it were capitalized correctly ;-) ). It obsoletes them. Please strike "and moves to historic status". (I'm happy to give you the long explanation of why moving to Historic is not the right thing if you like.)

Reported by julian.reschke@gmx.de, migrated from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/544

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de changed description from:

1:

This HTTP/1.1 specification obsoletes and moves to historic status RFC 2616, its predecessor RFC 2068, and RFC 2145 (on HTTP versioning).

Please, no, it doesn't (and shouldn't) move any of these documents to Historic (even if it were capitalized correctly ;-) ). It obsoletes them. Please strike "and moves to historic status". (I'm happy to give you the long explanation of why moving to Historic is not the right thing if you like.)

to:

This HTTP/1.1 specification obsoletes and moves to historic status RFC 2616, its predecessor RFC 2068, and RFC 2145 (on HTTP versioning).

Please, no, it doesn't (and shouldn't) move any of these documents to Historic (even if it were capitalized correctly ;-) ). It obsoletes them. Please strike "and moves to historic status". (I'm happy to give you the long explanation of why moving to Historic is not the right thing if you like.)

mnot commented 10 years ago

julian.reschke@gmx.de commented:

From 2529:

do not move 2068/2616/2145 to historic (see #544)

mnot commented 10 years ago