IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24

On 2013-10-28 09:07, S Moonesamy wrote:
> ...
> Section 8.1 defines a HTTP Method Registry where registration requires
> IETF Review.  I took a quick look at Issue #364.  Section 4.2 discusses
> about common method properties, e.g. cacheable.  The fields in Section
> 8.1.1 does not include cacheable.
> ...

Yes -- this is not necessarily a problem. There are many things that 
need to be defined for a new method, and not all of these fit into the 

> There are considerations for new methods in Section 8.1.2.  I gather
> that the working group understands that someone will have to review the
> specification and raise an issue if the considerations are not followed.


> The table in Section 8.1.3 only mentions the section number.  There is
> an assumption that the specification text is in this draft.  I suggest

That's an assumption that is true for all "bare" Section references.

> also adding a reference for the RFC number.  As a note for the reader,
> draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-13 also registers some HTTP
> methods.

The IANA Considerations are processed by the RFC Editor and IANA, and 
they will make sure that the registry is properly populated. There's no 
point in mentioning a still unknown RFC # here.

> The above assumption also applies to Section 8.2.  I suggest updating
> the existing registrations at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/ so that the
> HTTP Status Code Registry is compliant with Section 8.2.1.
> ...

What, precisely?

 > ...

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782

Received on Monday, 28 October 2013 14:15:10 UTC