Found 1 record.
Errata ID: 1801
Reported By: Mark Nottingham
Date Reported: 2009-07-05
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2009-07-18
Section 7.1 says:
Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review in the form of a standards track document within the IETF Applications Area. Any such document SHOULD be traceable through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard for HTTP/1.1 .
It should say:
Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review (, Section 4.1). (where  would refer to RFC 5226 in the References Section)
Since RFC 2817 was published, it has become harder to publish non-WG
documents on the Standards Track. The "IETF review" policy is defined in
RFC 5226 as:
IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through
RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978]. The
intention is that the document and proposed assignment will
be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or
experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to
ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively
impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols
in an inappropriate or damaging manner.
To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG)
documents with an IETF Last Call.
which should address this nicely.
Furthermore, overloading the "Updates" relation for specifications that
use a well-defined extension point plus an IANA registry is misleading.
Reviewed by the HTTPbis WG; see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/170>
Report New Errata