- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:29:41 +0200
- To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-07-03 22:23, mike amundsen wrote:
>> For example, it would be at best inefficient to try to reflect the semantics of the body in the registry.
>
> Agreed.
>
> What I am asking here is on two fronts:
> 1 - does the _table_ in the proposed RFC ("Initial ... Method
> Registrations") reflect the proposed _registry_ template?
Yes.
> 2 - are any of the items mentioned in 2.2.1 (besides Safety) expected
> to appear in the registry template?
So far, no. That's why we are having this discussion now.
> I want to make sure I am not conflating things (RFC & upcoming
> registry). Unless, of course, the point of both the RFC and the bis is
> to do just that; establish a symmetry between the registry and the
> RFC/bis.
The point of the registrations draft is to fill the template for those
methods not defined by HTTPbis.
Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 20:30:10 UTC