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

Re: #172 (take over HTTP Upgrade Token Registry) httpbis

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 08:36:50 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EFA80B9A-79EB-4BBD-8ED3-B4AEDE65F987@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 06/06/2009, at 5:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Open Questions:
>
> - are we happy with the details of the registration procedure (if  
> not, we should treat that as separate issue)?, and

My first impulse upon reading this was to suggest it be changed to a  
designated expert procedure (which IMO is good policy, as it allows a  
sanity check on registrations without raising the bar too high).  
However, AFAICT there aren't as many risks in registering a new  
upgrade token as there would be for a new header (for example), and  
the considerable effort required to deploy a new upgrade token  
successfully suggests that the registry won't be inundated.

So, I'm not fussed either way.

> - is the registry supposed to take just product tokens, or product/ 
> version pairs? The text in RFC 2817 is unclear, and the one value it  
> registers contains both.

My reading of the text is that the term "token" was an unfortunate  
choice, and the intent was to register both.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 22:37:26 GMT

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