W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Status of IANA Considerations (registrations and registries) -- issues 40, 59, 72, 79

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:31:47 +0200
Message-ID: <484571F3.8050302@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

over the last weekend I spent some time working on IANA considerations. 
There are four related open issues, and some questions left...


A. Message headers: <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>

I have added those throughout, but I wonder...:

1) What's the standards status of Content-Disposition?

- it's defined in RFC2616, but it says: "Content-Disposition is not part 
of the HTTP standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are 
documenting its use and risks for implementors." (in the Security 
Considerations)

- the initial registry (RFC4229) says "standard" 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4229#section-2.1.22>)

- however the actual registry 
(<http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html>) 
doesn't mention a status

-> I'm tempted to leave it as defined in registry, so with no entry for 
the standard status

2) Should we include more information, such as whether the header 
accepts list syntax? Can we, without changing the registration procedure?


B. Status Codes: <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>

I have added instructions to update the status code registry in P2.

Question:

3) The current status code registration procedure is hiding in a really 
obscure place (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817#section-7.1>), should 
Part 2 take over (me thinks yes). Should we keep the registration 
requirements (IETF standards track)?


C. Request Method registry: 
<http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/72>

That registry currently doesn't exist, but I believe it should, and 
belongs into Part 2. So:

4) Should we add a registration procedure similar to the one used for 
status codes?


D. Media types: <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/97>

This seems to be just a reminder that the media types defined in P1 and 
P3 need to be mentioned in the IANA Considerations (TBD).


Feedback appreciated,

Julian
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 16:32:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:48 GMT