- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:50 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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