- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:15:28 +0200
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 28/03/2012, at 2:14 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Mar 28, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/346> >> >> At yesterday's meeting, there was some pushback on defining our registry policies as IETF Review for "consistency." >> >> Given that there is a larger discussion about registry policy definition taking place, and I *think* we've agreed that we shouldn't block HTTPbis on that discussion (since it's likely to take some time), it seems that we should take the attitude of installing (relatively) temporary registration policies; i.e., we should make them reasonable, but not try to solve all of the problems we perceive with them, in the belief / hope that a more general effort will help later. >> >> In #346, we changed the following registries to "IETF Review": >> >> * Upgrade Tokens (previously First Come First Served) >> * Transfer-Codings (previously Specification Required) >> * Content-Codings (previously Specification Required) >> >> I'm re-opening this ticket based upon discussion in the meeting yesterday. >> >> My take - >> >> I believe we should leave Transfer-Codings and Content-Codings as IETF Review, because otherwise we will need to establish expert review procedures and guidelines for them, as well as identify experts. These are very low-throughput registries, and will benefit from IETF review (as there's a cost to adding new schemes to negotiation). > > Why do we care? FCFS is fine provided that reservations for deployed names > can be overtaken by the controllers of those names. What I'd like to see in > a registry is a status section that is subject to expert review, so that I > can mark registered names as "standard" / "experiment" / "deprecated" / "idiotic". RIght; I want to get there too, but I don't think we should block on figuring that out. See other message. > >> I think we should discuss Upgrade Tokens; first-come-first-served may make sense here. However, I'd note it'd be a shame if we spent too much time on it. > > FCFS is fine provided that reservations for deployed names can be overtaken > by the controllers of those names. > > ....Roy -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 15:15:57 UTC