W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Reserved extension ids

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:53:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXNaoy63eANALOC6wETq1=U3ZQ=6n_+-kWS-aoSSWw31g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 June 2014 09:09, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> wrote:
> As of right now, the method for negotiating extensions is unspecified.
> During the interim we discussed the possibility of using IANA to reserve
> extensions. Will this become part of the spec? I think it may be a good idea
> to formally segment the ID space, even if we leave out the IANA details. For
> instance, the first 1/2 to 3/4 of the setting ID space is reserved for
> future RFCs, and the last 1/2 to 1/4 is reserved for experimental/ephemeral
> use. The same consideration for frame identifiers could be useful, although
> I recognize that's a constrained space.

Let me know if this is OK: https://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#iana

This establishes IANA registries for frame types, settings and error
codes.  They have different rules, but those rules follow your
recommendation pretty closely.

I'll note however that future RFCs are not given special status over
other documents, other than being a slightly easier way to get frame
types, given the selected registration rules.
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 16:53:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC