Re: ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content

On 09.05.2010 15:03, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> fre 2010-05-07 klockan 16:24 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
>> (We still need to figure out how to get RFC 5861's extensions into the
>> registry.)
> What about running the IANA registry requests as separate RFCs just for
> establishing the registries? This is at large a separate activity from
> HTTPbis in general and should not be blocked waiting on HTTPbis to
> complete. And in addition it's for normative reasons undesired to have
> HTTPbis standard document declare references to all prior documents
> which should have their values included in the registry.
 > ...

Good point. So far we kept the registries inline.

The only *new* registry that we added before is for method names, and 
indeed we have the registrations for all non-HTTP/1.1 methods in a 
separate document 

In this particular case, we only have one document (RFC 5861) defining 
the extension, so the easiest way to address this would be for Mark to 
send an IANA registration request once the registry is in place.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 9 May 2010 13:37:08 UTC