Re: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry

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?


> 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