W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

#464, was: p7: editorial suggestions

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:01:01 +0200
Message-ID: <517FB27D.5020703@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-04-29 04:28, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Ok, makes sense. Consider that feedback for the other parts, then.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 29/04/2013, at 1:49 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2013-04-23 07:09, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Also, the requirements and considerations for registries in our other parts are defined in the IANA Considerations section; here, they're defined in the main document (2.3). Why the difference?
>>> ...
>> This used to be consistent (in the main document), but it changed some time ago in P1, P2, P4 and P5.
>> P6 (Cache-Control Extensions) and P7 (Auth schemes) still have them in the main document.
>> Consistency would be good, yes. I personally *prefer* the original placement, because "IANA Considerations" is really *that* and nothing more; the considerations for extensions really are important completely independently of whether somethings gets registered with IANA or not.
>> Best regards, Julian

OK, I have opened a separate ticket for this 
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/464>) and plan to 
move these sections to back where they were in the -20 drafts.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 12:01:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC