- From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:32:34 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7/7/21 12:31 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > >> On 3 Jul 2021, at 2:00 am, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> I suggest you provide IANA with a template for the registry, and provide authors of extension parameters with a template for what should be included in a specification document. >>> There's a registration template in Section 4, referenced from the IANA considerations. >> >> Yes, I saw that. But IANA isn't instructed to make a registry containing those things. (They are described as being input to the expert. I'm greatly in favor of specifying what input the expert should consider.) >> >> Also, IANA is asked to populate the registry from section 2. But section 2 isn't consistent with that template. >> >> I suggest you be clear about how the IANA registry should be formatted, and then provide a filled in template containing what you want to go into the registry from section 2. > > Since this discussion, IANA has commented on the draft, and didn't have any issues with identifying how to populate the registry. I did, however, forget to register the HTTP header itself :) OK. But wait and see what they end up creating for the initial entries. Can you give a plausible example of an extension that could be sufficiently defined without an accompanying document? Where the only information available to the user is what is contained in the IANA registry? Thanks, Paul
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2021 13:48:28 UTC