Re: #172 (take over HTTP Upgrade Token Registry) httpbis

On 06/06/2009, at 5:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Open Questions:
> - are we happy with the details of the registration procedure (if  
> not, we should treat that as separate issue)?, and

My first impulse upon reading this was to suggest it be changed to a  
designated expert procedure (which IMO is good policy, as it allows a  
sanity check on registrations without raising the bar too high).  
However, AFAICT there aren't as many risks in registering a new  
upgrade token as there would be for a new header (for example), and  
the considerable effort required to deploy a new upgrade token  
successfully suggests that the registry won't be inundated.

So, I'm not fussed either way.

> - is the registry supposed to take just product tokens, or product/ 
> version pairs? The text in RFC 2817 is unclear, and the one value it  
> registers contains both.

My reading of the text is that the term "token" was an unfortunate  
choice, and the intent was to register both.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 22:37:26 UTC