- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:45:39 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2014-09-19 19:20, Sandro Hawke wrote: > ... > Thanks for the pointer. I still can't tell if the text defining the new > range type MUST be in an RFC or can be in a non-RFC formal open > specification, as it can with media type and link type registrations. > > I also don't know (forgive me) what "IETF review" means. Who needs to > be convinced, and how many days will it take? <http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/specs/rfc7233.html#range.unit.registry.procedure> says: > Registration of an HTTP Range Unit MUST include the following fields: > > Name > Description > Pointer to specification text > > Values to be added to this namespace require IETF Review (see [RFC5226], Section 4.1). <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1> says: > IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in > [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through > RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD- > Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978]. The > intention is that the document and proposed assignment will > be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or > experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to > ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively > impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols > in an inappropriate or damaging manner. > > To ensure adequate community review, such documents are > shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG) > documents with an IETF Last Call. > > Examples: IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025], > Accounting-Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005], TLS > Handshake Hello Extensions [RFC4366]. So you need an RFC that does through a Working Group or is sponsored by an Area Director. (Which happens to be exactly the same requirement as for a new status code). > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 08:46:10 UTC