#464, was: p7: editorial suggestions

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 30 April 2013 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9CE21F99C6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 74FrxAmARKrf for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAB621F9A50 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UX9Fd-00061d-He for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:01:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:01:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UX9Fd-00061d-He@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UX9FU-00060p-Hy for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:01:32 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UX9FT-0002p2-9G for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:01:32 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.35]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MXkWv-1U0RiZ1ma7-00WjZq for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:01:04 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2013 12:01:04 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp035) with SMTP; 30 Apr 2013 14:01:04 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/jdS4sX1zjNeIMoZcjtVgTCOBNmi4XVflfKUAC7W QGyyBV9/jMijPz
Message-ID: <517FB27D.5020703@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:01:01 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <BBC3AF8C-03C1-4A1E-B406-7DCE44AB4B0E@mnot.net> <2E4BC2C5-1F9E-4CAC-A926-40640183FE98@mnot.net> <517D44F1.7060009@gmx.de> <9F6574E6-2A68-46A8-80E8-30B332F7397E@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F6574E6-2A68-46A8-80E8-30B332F7397E@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.419, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UX9FT-0002p2-9G 90c2643b8bcad920f81b6273b5a5c207
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: #464, was: p7: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/517FB27D.5020703@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17724
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2013-04-29 04:28, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Ok, makes sense. Consider that feedback for the other parts, then.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 29/04/2013, at 1:49 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-04-23 07:09, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Also, the requirements and considerations for registries in our other parts are defined in the IANA Considerations section; here, they're defined in the main document (2.3). Why the difference?
>>> ...
>>
>> This used to be consistent (in the main document), but it changed some time ago in P1, P2, P4 and P5.
>>
>> P6 (Cache-Control Extensions) and P7 (Auth schemes) still have them in the main document.
>>
>> Consistency would be good, yes. I personally *prefer* the original placement, because "IANA Considerations" is really *that* and nothing more; the considerations for extensions really are important completely independently of whether somethings gets registered with IANA or not.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian

OK, I have opened a separate ticket for this 
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/464>) and plan to 
move these sections to back where they were in the -20 drafts.

Best regards, Julian