Re: p7: editorial suggestions

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 29 April 2013 02:29 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 6548121F86F4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.181
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.819, 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 4o0IwUIPr8yc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25A821F866E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWdpg-0000ws-Ma for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:28:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:28:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWdpg-0000ws-Ma@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UWdpc-0000w8-Al for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:28:44 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UWdpX-0008P6-Qq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:28:44 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.29] (unknown [203.45.170.232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27D2A22E1FA; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:28:18 -0400 (EDT)
References: <BBC3AF8C-03C1-4A1E-B406-7DCE44AB4B0E@mnot.net> <2E4BC2C5-1F9E-4CAC-A926-40640183FE98@mnot.net> <517D44F1.7060009@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <517D44F1.7060009@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9F6574E6-2A68-46A8-80E8-30B332F7397E@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:28:15 +1000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UWdpX-0008P6-Qq 5664c742c83ba779867aca51f752fa4e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p7: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/9F6574E6-2A68-46A8-80E8-30B332F7397E@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17650
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>

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