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

Re: Fixing the IANA HTTP upgrade token registry, Re: #172 (take over HTTP Upgrade Token Registry) httpbis

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:25:47 -0700
Message-Id: <9A460ACF-0295-4BB6-90CA-006986CD1932@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 2009, at 4:50 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> so the proposal is to fix the Upgrade Token Registry contents  
>>> (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens/>) to say:
>>> -- snip --
>>> Value     Description                 Reference
>>> HTTP      Hypertext Transfer Protocol [RFC2616]
>>> TLS/1.0   Transport Layer Security    [RFC2817]
>>> WebSocket The Web Socket Protocol     [draft-hixie- 
>>> thewebsocketprotocol]
>>> -- snip --
>> No, that TLS/1.0 is not valid.  The token is TLS.
>> ...
> Roy,
> we just discussed this very issue and came to the conclusion that  
> the registry can contain both simple tokens and token + version  
> combinations. In particular, the registry procedure in RFC 2817  
> (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817#section-7.2>) says:
>  6.  The responsible party for the first registration of a "product"
>      token MUST approve later registrations of a "version" token
>      together with that "product" token before they can be  
> registered."
> ...which indicates that the registry can hold both. I imagine the  
> purpose is that individual entries for different versions can point  
> to different specifications.

I thought that it was obvious from the discussion -- "/" is not
part of a token.

> As HTTPbis Part 1 now takes over the registry for Upgrade Tokens we  
> can of course fix this, in which case we should re-open issue 172  
> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/172>).
> With respect to TLS and the registration, RFC 2817 clearly is  
> confused, as it says:
>    This specification defines the protocol token "TLS/1.0" as the
>    identifier for the protocol specified by The TLS Protocol [6].
> ...although "TLS/1.0" is a token + version, not a simple token.

Ignore 2817 -- it is obviously wrong.  In any case, Upgrade is an HTTP
header field and 2616 defines its syntax -- "/" is not allowed in a  
It is also a complete waste of time to "register" version indicators.
There is no potential for misunderstanding what they mean, nor potential
for conflicting use.

> If we do agree that this should just have said "TLS", we of course  
> can submit an erratum to RFC2817, and adjust the registry contents  
> as well.

I thought the plan was to obsolete 2817.

Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 19:26:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC