- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:12:13 +0100
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Julian Reschke schrieb:
>
> Julian Reschke schrieb:
>>>> updates the registrations (and in a sense formalizes them since RFC
>>>> 2518
>>>> did not have an IANA Considerations section explicitly). s21.1 should
>>>> refer to RFC 4395 which controls the URI Scheme registry. s21.3 should
>>>> refer to RFC 4229 which formalized the initial state of the message
>>>> header field registrations. It occurs to me that I did not check if
>>>> there are any message headers which were in RFC 2518 but are now
>>>> dropped
>>>> - if so this should probably be recorded here.
>>>
>>> Adding the two references is simple (opened:
>>> <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=264>).
>>>
>>> There indeed are headers that have been removed. However, they stay
>>> defined by RFC2518, so shouldn't they stay in the registry?
>> Yes. They will stay in the registry but given that 2518 doesn't
>> explicitly define the registry entries, it would probably be worth
>> noting the ones that are not updated (and saying this is the case) as
>> well as thoses that are.
>> ...
>
> Turns out that we need to reregister HTTP status codes as well ((see
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817#section-7.1> and
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>).
>
> Best regards, Julian
OK, below are the proposed changes for the IANA Consideration section
(see also
<http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=264> and
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#iana.considerations>):
+++
Section 21.1., para. 1:
OLD:
This specification defines two URI schemes:
NEW:
This specification defines two URI schemes (see [RFC3986] and
[RFC4395]):
Section 21.3., para. 1:
OLD:
The message header fields below should be added to the permanent
registry (see [RFC3864]).
NEW:
The message header fields below should be updated in the permanent
registry (see [RFC3864] for the registration process, and [RFC4229]
for the initial registration being updated by this specification).
Note: the "Status-URI" header defined in Section 9.7 of [RFC2518]
has been removed in this specification; its IANA registration
should continue to reference RFC2518.
Section 22., para. 0:
OLD:
22. Acknowledgements
NEW:
21.4. HTTP Status Codes
This specification defines the HTTP status codes
o 207 Multi-Status (Section 11.1),
o 422 Unprocessable Entity (Section 11.2),
o 423 Locked (Section 11.3),
o 424 Failed Dependency (Section 11.4) and
o 507 Insufficient Storage (Section 11.5),
to be updated in the registry at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>.
Note: the HTTP status code 102 (Processing) (defined in Section
10.1 of [RFC2518]) has been removed in this specification; its
IANA registration should continue to reference RFC2518.
22. Acknowledgements
+++
Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 February 2007 13:12:18 UTC