Subject: [apps-discuss] RFC5988bis

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:20:17 +1100

Just an FYI - 

I've started collecting issues against RFC5988 (including from the errata) here:
  https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues?labels=rfc5988bis&state=open

Feel free to add some.

If things go well, I'll come back here with a proposal for a revision after working on it a bit. 

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:19:59 +0100

>  https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues?labels=rfc5988bis&state=open

Given that

   Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) will
   either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this
   decision to the review list and IANA. ...

does not happen in practise, revising the registration process should be
a primary concern.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:20:17 +0100

On 2013-11-25 04:20, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...

I'll likely finish the work on 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-latest.html>, 
so it can use an updated reference.

Question: RFC 5987 ("Indicating Character Encoding and Language for HTTP 
Header Field Parameters") was a private, AD-sponsored, standards track 
document. For a revision, should I move to either httpbis or appsawg?

Best regards, Julian