ons 2007-03-07 klockan 12:28 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: > The status code registry is very well hidden in there... I'd propose to > either integrate it into RFC2616bis, or to move it into a separate > document (such as proposed with > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-status-registry-latest.html>). My opinion is to integrate. RFC2616bis should reference the IANA directly for the relevant registries defined based on RFC2616, with a reference to the RFC where the IANA responsibility was originally defined for that registry where applicable. With the IANA registries already existing and operational (even if not well known) I don't see the point of duplicating their content in a new registry type RFC (and therefore not in a draft either). Regards Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 19:14:14 UTC