Re: #464, was: p7: editorial suggestions

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 30 April 2013 23:30 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 1726721F8808 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.958
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.958 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.814, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, 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 KKbeT+RRHdlp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA00621F87D5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UXJzc-0004gp-JY for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:29:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:29:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UXJzc-0004gp-JY@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UXJzT-0004g6-Rj for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:29:43 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UXJzS-0003rX-Pa for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:29:43 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB136509B5; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:29:20 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <E7A0539A-AFC1-49F5-8220-45057736F0B3@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:29:18 +1000
Cc: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1976FE49-D9AC-4678-8668-0357861955A8@mnot.net>
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> <517FB27D.5020703@gmx.de> <E7A0539A-AFC1-49F5-8220-45057736F0B3@adobe.com>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.874, FRT_ADOBE2=1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UXJzS-0003rX-Pa 90ce2f683768f9b5fcd40328d4d770a1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #464, was: p7: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/1976FE49-D9AC-4678-8668-0357861955A8@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17739
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>

Let's move p6 and p7's sections, then.


On 01/05/2013, at 5:02 AM, Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com> wrote:

> On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> No, that would substantially harm the reading experience.  I moved
> them out because someone who is interested in learning the protocol
> has almost nothing in common with someone looking to invent
> a new protocol element, and the advice within those sections is
> really for the expert reviewers.
> 
> ....Roy
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/