RE: Review of Content-Encoding: value token [exi]

Mark,

Thank you for the information. I'm impressed with the responsiveness of this
group given the number of issues you are tackling. Much appreciated!

We are wanting to complete the registration very soon, so we will follow
your suggestion of using the current process. We will also try to make sure
what we are doing fits with the new process you are developing. I will raise
the idea of merging the content-coding and transfer-coding registries with
the EXI group.

Please let me know if you have any additional guidance or suggestions for
us. I really appreciate your help!

	All the best,

	John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:57 PM
> To: john.schneider@agiledelta.com
> Cc: 'Henrik Nordstrom'; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token [exi]
> 
> 
> On 26/08/2009, at 9:12 AM, John Schneider wrote:
> 
> > Mark,
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer. This makes it clear there is an 
> open action to 
> > change the IANA registration procedures for content 
> codings. I noticed 
> > there was no date associated with the associated milestone 
> #08. Do you 
> > have an idea when this milestone will be completed and the new 
> > procedures enacted by IANA?
> 
> We don't have a definite date for -08, but I suspect it will 
> be in the next month or two, at the most.
> 
> Even then, the new requirements won't take effect until we 
> finish our work, so the current process is indeed what you 
> want to follow, if you're looking at doing this soon.
> 
> That said, it would be good if what you do is done with an 
> eye towards the new regime, to reduce the amount of problems 
> we see down the road.  
> In particular, it looks like the content-coding and 
> transfer-coding registry will be one and the same, so it 
> would help if you could design your registration with that in mind.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> >
> > Given the timing of our request, it seems it might be a bit more 
> > efficient for us to follow the current process rather than 
> waiting for 
> > the new one to be instantiated. Is that correct?
> >
> > 	Thanks,
> >
> > 	John
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> >> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:08 PM
> >> To: Henrik Nordstrom
> >> Cc: john.schneider@agiledelta.com; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token [exi]
> >>
> >> We are; see
> >>   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/188
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24/08/2009, at 7:41 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> >>
> >>> sön 2009-08-23 klockan 21:52 -0700 skrev John Schneider:
> >>>
> >>>> In speaking with Mark Nottingham last week, I understand
> >> HTTPbis will
> >>>> be re-instating the registry for HTTP content coding value
> >> tokens and
> >>>> reviewing requests for new content codings. The W3C EXI
> >> working group
> >>>> would like to submit a request to register the value token
> >> "exi" as a
> >>>> new content coding. They have asked me to work with you 
> to answer 
> >>>> questions about this request and elaborate as needed 
> regarding our 
> >>>> use cases and rationale.
> >>>
> >>> I am not aware of any planned changes in the content
> >> encoding registry
> >>> procedure. Mark, did you mix this up with the upgrade registry?
> >>>
> >>> But you are imho welcome to actively include HTTPbis for
> >> preleminary
> >>> review of your specification before submission to IANA 
> even if the 
> >>> specification as such is outside the scope of HTTPbis.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Henrik
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 02:31:44 UTC