- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:28:15 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ok, makes sense. Consider that feedback for the other parts, then. Sent from my iPhone On 29/04/2013, at 1:49 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2013-04-23 07:09, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Also, the requirements and considerations for registries in our other parts are defined in the IANA Considerations section; here, they're defined in the main document (2.3). Why the difference? >> ... > > This used to be consistent (in the main document), but it changed some time ago in P1, P2, P4 and P5. > > P6 (Cache-Control Extensions) and P7 (Auth schemes) still have them in the main document. > > Consistency would be good, yes. I personally *prefer* the original placement, because "IANA Considerations" is really *that* and nothing more; the considerations for extensions really are important completely independently of whether somethings gets registered with IANA or not. > > Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 02:28:44 UTC