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

On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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 <http:// 
>>>>, 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 < 
> http-upgrade-tokens/>
> 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

Yep, fine, I just don't want to see any precedent for registering
specific versions.  I don't know how 2817 passed review.

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

Yes, that was just a joke (for Mark's benefit).


Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 20:15:05 UTC