Re: Fixing the IANA HTTP upgrade token registry, Re: #172 (take over HTTP Upgrade Token Registry) httpbis

On Aug 22, 2009, at 3:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> It is also a complete waste of time to "register" version indicators.
>> There is no potential for misunderstanding what they mean, nor  
>> potential
>> for conflicting use.
>
> Then we need to change it. My understanding was that the original  
> authors wanted the ability to register different versions so that  
> the registry could point to different documents for them.

Most registries allow multiple references after the token.

>>> If we do agree that this should just have said "TLS", we of  
>>> course can submit an erratum to RFC2817, and adjust the registry  
>>> contents as well.
>> I thought the plan was to obsolete 2817.
>
> That part of RFC 2817, yes.
>
> But in the meantime we should tell IANA what to put into the  
> registry, because right now it is broken (see <http://www.iana.org/ 
> assignments/http-upgrade-tokens/>, it contains no entries for HTTP  
> and TLS, and a single broken entry for Websocket).

Yes, we should tell them to put "TLS", "HTTP", "Websocket", and "waka"
in the registry.

....Roy

Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 19:09:22 UTC