IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]