W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: FYI: draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http-01

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:28:40 -0700
Message-Id: <5A3056EB-0C2E-11D9-B1BD-000A95BD86C0@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>

Hi Roy,

Keep in mind that these are seeds for the registries, which is AFAIK  
why there are the textual summaries in addition to the ToCs. Graham  
Klyne (cc:ed) wrote the software that helps me generate the listings,  
and is also the mastermind behind the registry itself (now RFC3864), so  
he may be able to shed additional light.

Registry entries aren't distinguished by type of standard; remember  
that non-IETF registrations (e.g., W3C) are allowed. They're only  
differentiated by whether they were specified by a recognised standards  
process (the permanent registry) or something more ad hoc (the  
provisional repository).

Cheers,


On Sep 21, 2004, at 5:16 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>> -02 is now available:
>>    
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http 
>> -02.txt
>>
>> It corrects a reference and some contact details, and adds headers  
>> from
>> HTML 4.
>
> Yikes, that's quite a bit of work.  HTTP is getting messy.
>
> I think it would help the organization a great deal if you got
> rid of the useless summary at the beginning of 2.1 and 2.2, and
> instead used the ToC for summary.  E.g.,
>
>    2. Standards-track HTTP Header Fields
>    2.1 A-IM
>    2.2 Accept
>    ...
>    3. Experimental HTTP Header Fields
>    ...
>    4. Informational HTTP Header Fields
>    ...
>    5. Historic HTTP Header Fields
>    ...
>    6.  IANA considerations
>    7.  Security considerations
>    ...
>
> And then be a little more descriptive in the use if the status
> field to mark ancient proposals as informational or historic.
>
>    Status:
>       Specify "standard", "experimental", "informational", "historic",
>       "obsoleted", or some other appropriate value according to the  
> type
>       and status of the primary document in which it is defined.  For
>       non-IETF specifications, those formally approved by other
>       standards bodies should be labelled as "standard"; others may be
>       "informational" or "deprecated" depending on the reason for
>       registration.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roy T. Fielding                            <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
> Chief Scientist, Day Software              <http://www.day.com/>
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 00:28:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:35 GMT