* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Ticket #143 (closed editorial: fixed)

Opened 5 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

IANA registry for content/transfer encodings

Reported by: julian.reschke@gmx.de Owned by: julian.reschke@gmx.de
Priority: urgent Milestone: 10
Component: non-specific Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:
Origin:

Description

The current spec mentions an IANA registry, but doesn't point to it (it is at http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters). Also, it talks about the "initial" registry contents, although in the meantime, at least one encoding ("pack200-gzip") has been added to the registry.

This probably should be rephrased somehow.

Attachments

i143.diff (3.1 KB) - added by julian.reschke@gmx.de 4 years ago.
proposed patch for parts 1 & 3

Change History

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Owner set to julian.reschke@gmx.de
  • Priority set to normal
  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 08

Make this consistent with our other registry related changes:

  • spell out the registration procedure in a subsection
  • add a sub section to the IANA registration section

Note that the registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters> is shared by both Transfer-Codings and Content-Codings, so I would propose to define the registry procedure in Part 1 (for Transfer-Codings), and have Part 3 (Content-Coding) refer to it.

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

define a single encoding registry, move definition of gzip & friends to part 1.

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 08 to 09

comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 09 to 10

comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Priority changed from normal to urgent

Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

proposed patch for parts 1 & 3

comment:7 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [808]:

Clarify not to share coding names between the content coding and the transfer coding registry unless the encoding is the same (see #143)

comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Status changed from new to closed
  • Resolution set to incorporated

comment:9 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [942]:

Remove "expert review" requirement for transfer/content coding, it is already implied by "specification required" (see #143)

comment:10 Changed 4 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution incorporated deleted

comment:11 Changed 4 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from reopened to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

comment:12 Changed 2 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Severity changed from Candidate WG Document to Active WG Document
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.