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

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

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:16:32 -0700
Message-Id: <52ED49D7-111E-11D9-92CC-000393753936@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>

> I don't entirely understand your concern here, so it's difficult to 
> respond in detail.  It seems you're finding it harder than it should 
> be to review the status categorization for each header field, or is 
> there more?

No, that's it.

> At the end of the day, the specific document format is quite mutable 
> -- the raw data is all in RDF/N3, and I can change the software's 
> output moderately easily, within limits.  My original plan was that 
> the summary consists of name + 1-line summary, because that's what 
> seemed useful to me.  The current format results from some feedback, 
> and I'm open to constructive suggestions if the present format is 
> problematic.

I just want something that is both reviewable and the same content as
what you are going to give IANA.  My guess is that would be simply a
summary table followed by RDF, or just list the headers in separate
sections by status and let the ToC be the summary.  If IANA wants the
templates (yuck), then just including a link to the RDF/N3 may be

>> Oh, bugger, never mind -- I was looking at the wrong section
>> of RFC 3864.  Status and provisional are not orthogonal at all.
>> Why the heck was it written that way?  Oh well...
> Well, your first take looked closer.  From the PoV of the 
> registration, they are largely orthogonal, except that the status has 
> some bearing on which sub-registry is applicable.
> As for why it was written that way... it's a couple of years ago now 
> that this was being reviewed and debated, so the details are now 
> fuzzy, but I do remember there were a number of conflicting concerns 
> to be navigated.  It reflected the balance of consensus at the time.

I meant that, if "provisional" is a status, then there is no need for
separate templates -- there is just one template with different values
for status.  That's what tripped me.  I don't have any problem with
provisional as a status as long as historic/deprecated drafts are
not considered provisional.  Note that there can only be one registry
anyways, since provisional names are not allowed to collide with
other names.

Anyway, consider that feedback for the next time the RFC is updated.
Right now I just want a way to view the intended registry content
without going blind.  Otherwise, there isn't much sense in sending
the draft out for public review.

Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 07:33:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC