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

Ho Roy,

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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.

Yes, we could do that.

>>>> 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 
>> <>, 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.

I'd really like to fix things carefully. Right now, it appears we have 
three action items:

1) fixing the current contents of 

2) changing/clarifying the registry format in HTTPbis

3) registering Waka

I'd like to treat those as separate, thus

1) fix the registry contents as proposed,

2) open a new issue for tracking the change in HTTPbis, and

3) let you register Waka yourself (I think all it'll take is email to IANA).

BR, Julian

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 12:28:11 UTC