- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 08:36:50 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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 http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 22:37:26 UTC