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: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:00:47 +0100
Message-ID: <4F55C42F.2030903@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-03-06 03:25, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> 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.

My point being: when you say

   "... 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."

Do you *really* mean that is sufficient to write an ID, and *not* get it 
published as RFC?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 08:01:28 GMT

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