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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:08:28 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6D03E512-3561-491D-BD92-8DF9CC54CB80@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


On 04/06/2008, at 2:31 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:


> 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

I vaguely remember struggling with this when we put the registry  
together. It doesn't fit well, but one can look at its use in HTTP as  
being defined in 2616 -- which is a standards-track document -- even  
if 2616 goes out of its way to say that C-D isn't part of the standard.

In actuality, though, this is an artefact of the use of Semantic Web  
technology to put together the registry. *shrug*


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

This is what 'related information' is for.


> 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)?

Yes and yes.


> 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?

Yes.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 13:09:07 GMT

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