W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

registration requirement for range units, was: Why Range doesn't work for LDP "paging" (cf 2NN Contents-of-Related)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:45:39 +0200
Message-ID: <541D3EB3.609@gmx.de>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2014-09-19 19:20, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> ...
> Thanks for the pointer.  I still can't tell if the text defining the new
> range type MUST be in an RFC or can be in a non-RFC formal open
> specification, as it can with media type and link type registrations.
>
> I also don't know (forgive me) what "IETF review" means.   Who needs to
> be convinced, and how many days will it take?

<http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/specs/rfc7233.html#range.unit.registry.procedure> 
says:

> Registration of an HTTP Range Unit MUST include the following fields:
>
>     Name
>     Description
>     Pointer to specification text
>
> Values to be added to this namespace require IETF Review (see [RFC5226], Section 4.1).

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1> says:

>       IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in
>             [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through
>             RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
>             Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978].  The
>             intention is that the document and proposed assignment will
>             be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or
>             experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to
>             ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively
>             impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols
>             in an inappropriate or damaging manner.
>
>             To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
>             shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG)
>             documents with an IETF Last Call.
>
>             Examples: IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025],
>             Accounting-Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005], TLS
>             Handshake Hello Extensions [RFC4366].

So you need an RFC that does through a Working Group or is sponsored by 
an Area Director.

(Which happens to be exactly the same requirement as for a new status code).

 > ...


Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 08:46:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC