Re: HTTP response version, again
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:23:59 +0100 (MET)
Roy T. Fielding:
>[Koen Holtman:]
>> Correcting an error in my own message: RFC1945 is not even `best
>> current practice', it ended up being `informational'. This gives it
>> even less legislative power. To quote RFC1602:
>>
>> An "Informational" specification is published for the
>> general information of the Internet community, and does
>> not represent an Internet community consensus or
>> recommendation.
>
>And, as I said before, that is irrelevant. There is no legislative
>power in any IETF specs, even full standards.
They have no legislative power in the literal sense, but people who
ignore part of an IETF spec _do_ tend to get labeled as criminals.
All I've been saying is that AOL's `crime' is not as big as it was
made out to be. And yes, the status of the RFC they ignored part of
_is_ relevant to this argument.
>.....Roy
Koen.