- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:26:20 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-03-05 05:17, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Proposal: > > Make all of our registries IETF Review (except for headers, which are governed by RFC3864). +1 > Add a 'status' field to each registry, with the following possible values: > > Standard / Reserved / Obsolete > > ... with the notion that if there are commonly-used values that haven't gone through IETF Review, they can be written up in a quick I-D and registered as Reserved. When you say "quick I-D" what exactly do you mean? Register as "reserved" with a pointer to the I-D? If the idea is that the I-D will have to be approved and published, what's the difference to "Standard"? (maybe standards-track vs non-standards-track?) > Because the rate of change for all of these is pretty slow, excepting headers (which as per above aren't included), and the set of folks extending these is pretty limited, I think it's OK. The only thing that makes me a bit nervous is cache directives, but they still don't move that fast (and it seems like the most direct impact would be on myself ;). > > Thoughts? I'm open to alternative approaches, just want to keep things rolling. If we keep things as they are, we need to identify a bunch of expert reviewers and document procedures for them. > > Cheers, > > P.S. this is related to<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/247>. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 22:26:52 UTC