On 2013-10-30 06:24, S Moonesamy wrote:
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?
The template only contains a subset of the information, so in general,
the reader will have to read the referenced RFC.
The entries in the template serve the purpose of shortcutting this
lookup for considerations that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".
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.
And the authors during AUTH48. There is no problem here. We will make
sure that the registry gets populated properly. Trust me.
...
Best regards, Julian