Re: [apps-discuss] IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julian,
At 07:14 28-10-2013, Julian Reschke wrote:
>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.

A DISCUSS about this can be easily addressed. :-)

What is the intent behind the HTTP Method Registry (Section 
8.1.3)?  What information should that registry convey to the 
reader?  For example, is it a quick way for the reader to find out 
whether POST is cacheable (re. a choice that a browser vendor made 
some time back) or should the person read the relevant specification 
text to get accurate answer?

>That's an assumption that is true for all "bare" Section references.

The problem is that people copy and paste them blindly.  I suggest 
having information in the tables as the working group would like it 
to appear in the registry

>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.

It is up to the Responsible Area Director and the the document 
shepherd to make sure that the registry is properly populated.

>What, precisely?

I suggest adding "RFC XXXX" in the tables.  I read 
draft-reschke-http-status-308-07.  The reference is similar to what 
is in draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24.  They are two different 
drafts and that makes referencing only the sections ambiguous.  RFC 
6585 updated the HTTP Status Code registry last year.  The current 
registry format only references the RFC number.  I suggest making the 
change clear so that, in some distant future, someone working on this 
can figure out the details of the registry.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy