- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:28:27 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I think a separate document to populate the registry is a good idea.
>> ...
>
> OK,
>
> so the current proposal would be to have:
>
> - the method registry inside Part2, modeled similarly to the status code
> registry (-> IETF review required),
Done with <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/270>,
please review:
3.1. Method Registry
The HTTP Method Registry defines the name space for the Method token
in the Request line of an HTTP request.
Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review
([RFC5226], Section 4.1). Any document registering new method names
should be traceable through statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or
'Updates' to this document.
The registry itself is maintained at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods>.
> - the registration for methods defined in Part 2 inside Part 2 (IANA
> Considerations)
11.1. Method Registry
The registration procedure for HTTP Methods is defined by Section 3.1
of this document.
The HTTP Method Registry located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods> should be populated
with the registrations below:
+---------+-------------+
| Method | Reference |
+---------+-------------+
| CONNECT | Section 8.9 |
| DELETE | Section 8.7 |
| GET | Section 8.3 |
| HEAD | Section 8.4 |
| OPTIONS | Section 8.2 |
| POST | Section 8.5 |
| PUT | Section 8.6 |
| TRACE | Section 8.8 |
+---------+-------------+
> - an additional document, referencing Part 2, and making the
> registrations for all other methods
I can work on that, but we probably should discuss whether this is
supposed to become a WG work item.
Also, we may want to consider adding more information to the registry
(safeness?), and possibly add text about the pros and cons of defining
new methods.
BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 13:29:16 UTC