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

Re: #247 and Registry policies

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:26:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4F553D8C.2020004@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-03-05 05:17, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> Make all of our registries IETF Review (except for headers, which are governed by RFC3864).

+1

> Add a 'status' field to each registry, with the following possible values:
>
> Standard / Reserved / Obsolete
>
> ... with the notion that if there are commonly-used values that haven't gone through IETF Review, they can be written up in a quick I-D and registered as Reserved.

When you say "quick I-D" what exactly do you mean? Register as 
"reserved" with a pointer to the I-D? If the idea is that the I-D will 
have to be approved and published, what's the difference to "Standard"?

(maybe standards-track vs non-standards-track?)

> Because the rate of change for all of these is pretty slow, excepting headers (which as per above aren't included), and the set of folks extending these is pretty limited, I think it's OK. The only thing that makes me a bit nervous is cache directives, but they still don't move that fast (and it seems like the most direct impact would be on myself ;).
>
> Thoughts? I'm open to alternative approaches, just want to keep things rolling. If we keep things as they are, we need to identify a bunch of expert reviewers and document procedures for them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> P.S. this is related to<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/247>.
> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 22:26:52 GMT

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