[apps-discuss] IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> Mon, 28 October 2013 14:14 UTC
Return-Path: <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3EB11E818C; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o3jfRxiLuB8A; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from central.greenbytes.de (mail.greenbytes.de [217.91.35.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE6F11E8185; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (unknown [217.91.35.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by central.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F53510C0665; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:14:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <526E7154.2070005@greenbytes.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:14:44 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20131027115007.07e32210@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131027115007.07e32210@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:14:54 -0000
On 2013-10-28 09:07, S Moonesamy wrote: > ... > Section 8.1 defines a HTTP Method Registry where registration requires > IETF Review. I took a quick look at Issue #364. Section 4.2 discusses > about common method properties, e.g. cacheable. The fields in Section > 8.1.1 does not include cacheable. > ... Yes -- this is not necessarily a problem. There are many things that need to be defined for a new method, and not all of these fit into the template. > There are considerations for new methods in Section 8.1.2. I gather > that the working group understands that someone will have to review the > specification and raise an issue if the considerations are not followed. Yes. > The table in Section 8.1.3 only mentions the section number. There is > an assumption that the specification text is in this draft. I suggest That's an assumption that is true for all "bare" Section references. > also adding a reference for the RFC number. As a note for the reader, > draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-13 also registers some HTTP > methods. The IANA Considerations are processed by the RFC Editor and IANA, and they will make sure that the registry is properly populated. There's no point in mentioning a still unknown RFC # here. > The above assumption also applies to Section 8.2. I suggest updating > the existing registrations at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/ so that the > HTTP Status Code Registry is compliant with Section 8.2.1. > ... What, precisely? > ... Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
- [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpb… S Moonesamy
- [apps-discuss] obs-date, was: APPSDIR review of d… Julian Reschke
- [apps-discuss] IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review o… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] obs-date, was: APPSDIR review … Julian Reschke
- [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence of m… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] obs-date, was: APPSDIR review … John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] obs-date, was: APPSDIR review … John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] obs-date, was: APPSDIR review … Amos Jeffries
- Re: [apps-discuss] IANA issues, was: APPSDIR revi… S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] obs-date, was: APPSDIR review,… S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] IANA issues, was: APPSDIR revi… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] obs-date, was: APPSDIR review … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence … Larry Masinter