W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:22:53 +0100
Message-ID: <45C9E0BD.9080307@gmx.de>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Julian Reschke schrieb:
>>> updates the registrations (and in a sense formalizes them since RFC 2518
>>> did not have an IANA Considerations section explicitly). s21.1 should
>>> refer to RFC 4395 which controls the URI Scheme registry. s21.3 should
>>> refer to RFC 4229 which formalized the initial state of the message
>>> header field registrations.  It occurs to me that I did not check if
>>> there are any message headers which were in RFC 2518 but are now dropped
>>> - if so this should probably be recorded here.
>>
>> Adding the two references is simple (opened: 
>> <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=264>).
>>
>> There indeed are headers that have been removed. However, they stay
>> defined by RFC2518, so shouldn't they stay in the registry?
> Yes. They will stay in the registry but given that 2518 doesn't
> explicitly define the registry entries, it would probably be worth
> noting the ones that are not updated (and saying this is the case) as
> well as thoses that are.
> ...

Turns out that we need to reregister HTTP status codes as well ((see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817#section-7.1> and
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 14:23:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT