Subject: Re: FYI: draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http-01

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:48:45 -0700

Oh, bugger, never mind -- I was looking at the wrong section
of RFC 3864.  Status and provisional are not orthogonal at all.
Why the heck was it written that way?  Oh well...

My suggestion remains though -- either create separate sections
for each status type (so we can see which ones are miscategorized)
or don't make any subsections at all (list all header fields
alphabetically regardless of status).  In any case, this was
obviously a lot of work to prepare, so kudos regardless.

....Roy

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:10:13 -0700

> Keep in mind that these are seeds for the registries, which is AFAIK 
> why there are the textual summaries in addition to the ToCs. Graham 
> Klyne (cc:ed) wrote the software that helps me generate the listings, 
> and is also the mastermind behind the registry itself (now RFC3864), 
> so he may be able to shed additional light.
>
> Registry entries aren't distinguished by type of standard; remember 
> that non-IETF registrations (e.g., W3C) are allowed. They're only 
> differentiated by whether they were specified by a recognised 
> standards process (the permanent registry) or something more ad hoc 
> (the provisional repository).

No, that would be quite worthless.  Provisional just means they haven't
been used extensively yet and may disappear from the registry if they
are never used.  Provisional versus Permanent is a separate, orthogonal
axis from status.

Historic means they shouldn't be used -- the registry simply reserves
the name to avoid collisions.  About 1/3 of the header fields in that 
list
should be marked historic or informational, which are distinctly 
different
categories from standard.  Standard means it is defined by a standards
track document, either within or outside the IETF, not just any 
document.
Old hypertext specs, W3C notes, discontinued Internet drafts, and
IETF Informational or Historic RFCs do not qualify as standards-track.
Standards-track IETF documents (draft or RFC), W3C REC track, ISO WG
items, and such should be marked as standard.

My suggested reorganization was to make it easier to review the fields
and identify discrepancies in the templates -- right now my eyes just
go blurry.  Alternatively, make the summary useful by including more of
the template content (status and spec reference), not "http".
IANA can generate their own summary from the templates *after*
they are entered within the IANA database.

....Roy

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:16:32 -0700

> I don't entirely understand your concern here, so it's difficult to 
> respond in detail.  It seems you're finding it harder than it should 
> be to review the status categorization for each header field, or is 
> there more?

No, that's it.

> At the end of the day, the specific document format is quite mutable 
> -- the raw data is all in RDF/N3, and I can change the software's 
> output moderately easily, within limits.  My original plan was that 
> the summary consists of name + 1-line summary, because that's what 
> seemed useful to me.  The current format results from some feedback, 
> and I'm open to constructive suggestions if the present format is 
> problematic.

I just want something that is both reviewable and the same content as
what you are going to give IANA.  My guess is that would be simply a
summary table followed by RDF, or just list the headers in separate
sections by status and let the ToC be the summary.  If IANA wants the
templates (yuck), then just including a link to the RDF/N3 may be
sufficient.

> Well, your first take looked closer.  From the PoV of the 
> registration, they are largely orthogonal, except that the status has 
> some bearing on which sub-registry is applicable.
>
> As for why it was written that way... it's a couple of years ago now 
> that this was being reviewed and debated, so the details are now 
> fuzzy, but I do remember there were a number of conflicting concerns 
> to be navigated.  It reflected the balance of consensus at the time.

I meant that, if "provisional" is a status, then there is no need for
separate templates -- there is just one template with different values
for status.  That's what tripped me.  I don't have any problem with
provisional as a status as long as historic/deprecated drafts are
not considered provisional.  Note that there can only be one registry
anyways, since provisional names are not allowed to collide with
other names.

Anyway, consider that feedback for the next time the RFC is updated.
Right now I just want a way to view the intended registry content
without going blind.  Otherwise, there isn't much sense in sending
the draft out for public review.

....Roy

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:47:53 -0700

Roy,

I've made the raw n3 that was used to generate the -02 draft available 
at:
   
http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http/http_headers.n3
if that will help.

Note that this wasn't intended for public consumption, so some of the 
prefixes aren't very well-chosen, etc.

Cheers,

On Sep 28, 2004, at 12:16 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>  If IANA wants the

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