* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Ticket #170 (closed design: fixed)

Opened 5 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

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

Reported by: julian.reschke@gmx.de Owned by:
Priority: normal Milestone: 07
Component: p2-semantics Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:
Origin: http://www.w3.org/mid/4A264FC4.7090408@gmx.de

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

170.diff (5.5 KB) - added by julian.reschke@gmx.de 5 years ago.
proposed change for part 2

Change History

Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

proposed change for part 2

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 07

accepted for incorporation

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [591]:

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

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

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

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

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

comment:5 Changed 2 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

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