W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2015

Re: Appdir Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-01

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:57:43 +0200
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, draft-ietf-httpbis-cice.all@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55CC8637.2040306@gmx.de>
On 2015-08-01 03:59, Barry Leiba wrote:
> ...
> Right.  The best way to handle this particular situation isn't to make
> this "update" 7231, but to add this to [RFC7231] in the reference
> field for status code 415 in the registry.
> ...

That's what I'm going to do; it best matches the intent of the document 
the WG agreed to

> On the other hand, let me probe Pete's point a bit:
> Someone reads 7231 and sees the definition for 415.  That someone
> doesn't read this, perhaps because she doesn't know about it.  She
> also doesn't look at the registry entry, and thus doesn't see the
> reference, because, after all, it's clear that 7231 defines 415, so
> why would one need to look at the registry entry for 415?
> In a case such as that, "updates" could be useful.  I'm ambivalent
> about whether we should do that, though -- we are trying to avoid
> using "updates" for optional extensions.

Right. We would just end up with a huge collection of "updates".

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 11:58:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:46 UTC