W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:13:39 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7ED47426-0015-4665-8E80-BEC853D17A8E@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
+1, I think.

AFAIK there isn't any advice to do this for documents that establish  
registries (e.g., in RFC5226).


On 03/06/2009, at 8:26 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
>
> in Part 2 we currently state for both:
>
> "Any document registering new method names should be traceable  
> through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to this document."
>
> I think we inherited that from RFC2817, Section 7.1. (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817#section-7.1 
> >)
>
> IMHO this doesn't make sense; the "updates" relation shouldn't be  
> used just because a specification uses a well-defined extension  
> point that already has a registry.
>
> Proposal: remove the requirement from sections 2.1 (method names)  
> and 4.1 (status codes).
>
> BR, Julian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 11:14:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT