- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:13:23 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > 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. OK, so let's leave things as they are for now. >> - 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. RFC 2817 registers "TLS/1.0" (token + product-version), while RFC 2616 reserves "HTTP" (just token). So we need to decide how to populate the existing registry (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens/>) which currently is empty -- actually it isn't anymore, it now has a broken entry for "WebSocket": > Value Description Reference > ----- ---------------- --------- > 1 WebSocket [draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol] ...broken in that the value to be registered isn't "1", right? Citing the registration procedure: > 6. The responsible party for the first registration of a "product" > token MUST approve later registrations of a "version" token > together with that "product" token before they can be registered. ...which licenses the registration of just a token. So it seems the registry can take both. My proposal thus is to instruct IANA to change the registry to: Value Description Reference HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol [RFC2616] TLS/1.0 Transport Layer Security [RFC2817] WebSocket WebScocketProtocol [draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol] BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 20:14:15 UTC