- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:24:51 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
So... +1 on making them all the same (except for header fields being defined elsewhere). This means we switch these three: > 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-upgradetokens.xml > > p3 > * Content Codings - Specification Required > http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-parameters.xml to IETF Review, which I believe makes a lot of sense for these anyway. I'm not convinced yet on the part about "reserved" and would like to get more feedback, or optimally guidance from the happiana activity. Proposal: just do the "make-them-consistent" part for now; will provide a proposed patch. Feedback appreciated, Julian 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). > > 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. > > 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>. > > > > On 01/03/2012, at 5:05 PM, 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? >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 21:25:22 UTC