W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Registry policies

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:12:21 +1300
Message-ID: <4F501065.7010501@qbik.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

my vote would be for deprecation of the concept of extensions for the 
range header.  Unless we are going to allow extension for 
Content-Length, we shouldn't allow it for Range.

e.g remove other-range-unit from the BNF.

Systems that want to request parts of things that aren't specified by 
bytes can do that some other way.  Absolutely no need to overload 
Range.  Otherwise a cache has an impossible job.

Adrien

On 1/03/2012 9:24 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-03-01 07:05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I've been reviewing the various registries we have in bis, and their 
>> associated policies (for 
>> reference:<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1>).
>>
>> Right now, we have:
>>
>> p1
>> * Transfer-codings - Specification Required
>>     http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-parameters.xml
>>
>> * Upgrade tokens - First Come First Served
>>     
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens/http-upgrade-tokens.xml
>>
>> p2
>> * Methods - IETF Review
>>
>> * Status Codes - IETF Review
>>     
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml
>>
>> * Headers - Specification Required
>>
>> p3
>> * Content Codings - Specification Required
>>     http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-parameters.xml
>>
>> p5
>> * Range Specifiers - IETF Review
>>
>> p6
>> * Cache Directives - IETF Review
>>
>> * Warn-codes - IETF Review
>>
>> p7
>> * Authentication Schemes - IETF Review
>>
>>
>> A few thoughts:
>>
>> I'm having a hard time believing that Cache Directives, Range 
>> Specifiers and Warn-codes should be IETF review. How do people feel 
>> about making them Specification Required?
>
> Warn codes are scarce. We already burned lots of cycles on a registry 
> that's probably never be used; so I'm -1 on any more changes on it.
>
> Cache Directives and Range Specs: maybe. They are they way they are 
> because we used IETF Review as default.
>
>> Does FCFS really make sense for upgrade tokens? It seems like this 
>> should be Specification Required, at a minimum. Yes, I know that it's 
>> historically been FCFS, but we have the latitude to review 
>> registration policies.
>
> If we're ready to change existing procedures, then yes, we should 
> change this.
>
>> Finally, all of the Specification Required registries (including any 
>> we decide to convert) imply use of an expert reviewer; we should make 
>> sure that we give reviewers advice.
>
> And we should consider how well Expert Review works in practice 
> (ahem!), and how many DEs we'll be able to recruit. Maybe this is an 
> argument in favor of IETF Review.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 00:12:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:56 GMT