- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:22:53 +0100
- 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 UTC