W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-13

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:25:34 +0100
Message-ID: <52773DDE.8010807@greenbytes.de>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations.all@tools.ietf.org
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iesg@ietf.org
On 2013-11-03 16:01, S Moonesamy wrote:
> ...
> The document registers those Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) methods
> which have been defined in standards-track RFCs before the IANA HTTP
> Method Registry was established.  The methods listed in the document is
> generally used for WebDAV.
> Some of the HTTP methods are extensions to HTTP.  The (new) registry

All of them (for some value of "extension").

> does not provide any information to distinguish between a method which
> is part of basic HTTP features and a method which is part of an
> extension to HTTP.

There is no such distinction.

> Major Issues: None
> Minor Issues:
> I suggest having the HTTP method names being registered in Section 3
> instead of Appendix A as the document is not of much use with that main
> information.

Already done in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2444>.

> Nits:
> The LINK and UNLINK HTTP methods are defined in RFC 2068 which was
> obsoleted by RFC 2616.    I gather that they are listed so that the
> method name is not reused.

They are listed in order to provide a reference to the best description 
that we have today.

> Editorial nits are not included in this review.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 06:26:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:19 UTC