- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:01:01 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-04-29 04:28, Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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 OK, I have opened a separate ticket for this (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/464>) and plan to move these sections to back where they were in the -20 drafts. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 12:01:32 UTC