- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:29:43 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roy T.Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Of course, it would help if I actually cc:ed Graham... On Sep 21, 2004, at 5:28 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hi Roy, > > Keep in mind that these are seeds for the registries, which is AFAIK > why there are the textual summaries in addition to the ToCs. Graham > Klyne (cc:ed) wrote the software that helps me generate the listings, > and is also the mastermind behind the registry itself (now RFC3864), > so he may be able to shed additional light. > > Registry entries aren't distinguished by type of standard; remember > that non-IETF registrations (e.g., W3C) are allowed. They're only > differentiated by whether they were specified by a recognised > standards process (the permanent registry) or something more ad hoc > (the provisional repository). > > Cheers, > > > On Sep 21, 2004, at 5:16 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >>> -02 is now available: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http >>> -02.txt >>> >>> It corrects a reference and some contact details, and adds headers >>> from >>> HTML 4. >> >> Yikes, that's quite a bit of work. HTTP is getting messy. >> >> I think it would help the organization a great deal if you got >> rid of the useless summary at the beginning of 2.1 and 2.2, and >> instead used the ToC for summary. E.g., >> >> 2. Standards-track HTTP Header Fields >> 2.1 A-IM >> 2.2 Accept >> ... >> 3. Experimental HTTP Header Fields >> ... >> 4. Informational HTTP Header Fields >> ... >> 5. Historic HTTP Header Fields >> ... >> 6. IANA considerations >> 7. Security considerations >> ... >> >> And then be a little more descriptive in the use if the status >> field to mark ancient proposals as informational or historic. >> >> Status: >> Specify "standard", "experimental", "informational", "historic", >> "obsoleted", or some other appropriate value according to the >> type >> and status of the primary document in which it is defined. For >> non-IETF specifications, those formally approved by other >> standards bodies should be labelled as "standard"; others may be >> "informational" or "deprecated" depending on the reason for >> registration. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/> >> Chief Scientist, Day Software <http://www.day.com/> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 00:29:46 UTC