W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:12:13 +0100
Message-ID: <45D6FF2D.1080101@gmx.de>
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 

Section 21.1., para. 1:

     This specification defines two URI schemes:


     This specification defines two URI schemes (see [RFC3986] and

Section 21.3., para. 1:

     The message header fields below should be added to the permanent
     registry (see [RFC3864]).


     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:

  22.  Acknowledgements


  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

        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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:41 UTC