- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:46:41 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > ... >> C. Request Method registry: >> <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/72> >> >> That registry currently doesn't exist, but I believe it should, and >> belongs into Part 2. So: >> >> 4) Should we add a registration procedure similar to the one used for >> status codes? > > Yes. > ... Note: if we define a new registry we will also have to supply the initial content for the registry, which in turn means we need to reference all applicable RFCs defining new methods. I don't have a problem with that, but thought I should mention it before adding references to RFC4918, RFC3253 etc.. The alternative would be to move the HTTP Method Name Registry into a separate document. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 13:47:25 UTC