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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:46:41 +0200
Message-ID: <485128C1.4020903@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
>> 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.
> ...

Note: if we define a new registry we will also have to supply the 
initial content for the registry, which in turn means we need to 
reference all applicable RFCs defining new methods.

I don't have a problem with that, but thought I should mention it before 
adding references to RFC4918, RFC3253 etc..

The alternative would be to move the HTTP Method Name Registry into a 
separate document.

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 13:47:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:46 UTC