- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:48:10 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think a separate document to populate the registry is a good idea. Cheers, On 12/06/2008, at 11:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 13:48:48 UTC