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

#346: Registry policies

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:27:49 +0200
Message-Id: <3177CA14-4B84-407C-A6B9-9B965D5E1EA2@mnot.net>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/346>

At yesterday's meeting, there was some pushback on defining our registry policies as IETF Review for "consistency."

Given that there is a larger discussion about registry policy definition taking place, and I *think* we've agreed that we shouldn't block HTTPbis on that discussion (since it's likely to take some time), it seems that we should take the attitude of installing (relatively) temporary registration policies; i.e., we should make them reasonable, but not try to solve all of the problems we perceive with them, in the belief / hope that a more general effort will help later.

In #346, we changed the following registries to "IETF Review":

* Upgrade Tokens (previously First Come First Served)
* Transfer-Codings (previously Specification Required)
* Content-Codings (previously Specification Required)

I'm re-opening this ticket based upon discussion in the meeting yesterday. 

My take - 

I believe we should leave Transfer-Codings and Content-Codings as IETF Review, because otherwise we will need to establish expert review procedures and guidelines for them, as well as identify experts. These are very low-throughput registries, and will benefit from IETF review (as there's a cost to adding new schemes to negotiation).

I think we should discuss Upgrade Tokens; first-come-first-served may make sense here. However, I'd note it'd be a shame if we spent too much time on it. 

Thoughts?

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 11:28:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT