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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:48:10 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A3E3CDF7-C97E-4654-828F-DC5FC89E1CD4@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I think a separate document to populate the registry is a good idea.

Cheers,


On 12/06/2008, at 11:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 13:48:48 GMT

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