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: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:50 -0700
Message-Id: <031F8D7A-AB63-423C-9AFA-10F0685F2A26@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Aug 22, 2009, at 3:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Then we need to change it. My understanding was that the original  
> authors wanted the ability to register different versions so that  
> the registry could point to different documents for them.

Most registries allow multiple references after the token.

>>> 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.
>
> That part of RFC 2817, yes.
>
> But in the meantime we should tell IANA what to put into the  
> registry, because right now it is broken (see <http://www.iana.org/ 
> assignments/http-upgrade-tokens/>, it contains no entries for HTTP  
> and TLS, and a single broken entry for Websocket).

Yes, we should tell them to put "TLS", "HTTP", "Websocket", and "waka"
in the registry.

....Roy
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 19:09:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT