- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:25:46 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 06/03/2012, at 9:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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?) The difference is that "standard" means it has a specification, and that specification has consensus. The alternative is something that's registered, but without consensus, and possibly without a (full) specification. I'm happy to use something other than "reserved" if there's a suggestion. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 02:26:16 UTC