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

Re: #247 and Registry policies

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:25:46 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B1A7C0AC-F6EE-4511-8F8A-3A43E0F16EB6@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

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.


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 02:26:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:01 UTC