W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Straw-man charter

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:13:28 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1173294808.13906.132.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
ons 2007-03-07 klockan 12:28 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:

> The status code registry is very well hidden in there... I'd propose to 
> either integrate it into RFC2616bis, or to move it into a separate 
> document (such as proposed with 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-status-registry-latest.html>).

My opinion is to integrate.

RFC2616bis should reference the IANA directly for the relevant
registries defined based on RFC2616, with a reference to the RFC where
the IANA responsibility was originally defined for that registry where
applicable.

With the IANA registries already existing and operational (even if not
well known) I don't see the point of duplicating their content in a new
registry type RFC (and therefore not in a draft either).

Regards
Henrik

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 19:14:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT