- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:00:47 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-03-06 03:25, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 06/03/2012, at 9:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> 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?) > > The difference is that "standard" means it has a specification, and that specification has consensus. > > The alternative is something that's registered, but without consensus, and possibly without a (full) specification. I'm happy to use something other than "reserved" if there's a suggestion. My point being: when you say "... 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." Do you *really* mean that is sufficient to write an ID, and *not* get it published as RFC? Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 08:01:28 UTC