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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:28:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4863997B.8000904@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I think a separate document to populate the registry is a good idea.
>> ...
> 
> OK,
> 
> so the current proposal would be to have:
> 
> - the method registry inside Part2, modeled similarly to the status code 
> registry (-> IETF review required),

Done with <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/270>, 
please review:

3.1.  Method Registry

    The HTTP Method Registry defines the name space for the Method token
    in the Request line of an HTTP request.

    Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review
    ([RFC5226], Section 4.1).  Any document registering new method names
    should be traceable through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or
    'Updates' to this document.

    The registry itself is maintained at
    <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods>.

> - the registration for methods defined in Part 2 inside Part 2 (IANA 
> Considerations)

11.1.  Method Registry

    The registration procedure for HTTP Methods is defined by Section 3.1
    of this document.

    The HTTP Method Registry located at
    <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods> should be populated
    with the registrations below:

    +---------+-------------+
    | Method  | Reference   |
    +---------+-------------+
    | CONNECT | Section 8.9 |
    | DELETE  | Section 8.7 |
    | GET     | Section 8.3 |
    | HEAD    | Section 8.4 |
    | OPTIONS | Section 8.2 |
    | POST    | Section 8.5 |
    | PUT     | Section 8.6 |
    | TRACE   | Section 8.8 |
    +---------+-------------+

> - an additional document, referencing Part 2, and making the 
> registrations for all other methods

I can work on that, but we probably should discuss whether this is 
supposed to become a WG work item.

Also, we may want to consider adding more information to the registry 
(safeness?), and possibly add text about the pros and cons of defining 
new methods.

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 13:29:16 GMT

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