W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: HTTP Draft-p1 and http scheme definition

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:54:07 +1000
Cc: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C61A4589-A7FF-4561-982A-786C065F9880@mnot.net>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Considering that the registry entry is present, fully populated, and we're just asking them to update the reference (see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-14#section-10.2>), I don't see a need to include the full template. 

On 02/05/2011, at 1:58 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> Greetings,
> The first mention of http URI scheme in IETF document (RFC) appeared in RFC 1945 (HTTP 1.0 specification).  Then, it remained unchanged (or was present with minor changes) in RFC 2068 and finally 2616.  RFC 2616 appeared long before RFC 4395, that outlined the registration procedures for URI schemes.  What I'm pointing to?
> The http scheme was never given a formal registration template, per RFC 4395.  Its definition of current HTTP draft-p1 remains the same as in RFC 2616.  However, RFC 4395 requests the registration template for permanent registrations, that is missing in this draft.
> The same concerns https scheme, also defined in p1.
> Thus I propose to add them (templates) for these URI schemes in order to suit the requirements of RFC 4395 for permanent registrations.  Any thoughts on it?
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 01:54:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:51 UTC