> On 7 Jul 2021, at 11:32 pm, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/7/21 12:31 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> On 3 Jul 2021, at 2:00 am, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you provide IANA with a template for the registry, and provide
>>>>> authors of extension parameters with a template for what should be
>>>>> included in a specification document.
>>>> There's a registration template in Section 4, referenced from the IANA
>>>> considerations.
>>>
>>> Yes, I saw that. But IANA isn't instructed to make a registry containing
>>> those things. (They are described as being input to the expert. I'm greatly
>>> in favor of specifying what input the expert should consider.)
>>>
>>> Also, IANA is asked to populate the registry from section 2. But section 2
>>> isn't consistent with that template.
>>>
>>> I suggest you be clear about how the IANA registry should be formatted, and
>>> then provide a filled in template containing what you want to go into the
>>> registry from section 2.
>> Since this discussion, IANA has commented on the draft, and didn't have any
>> issues with identifying how to populate the registry. I did, however, forget
>> to register the HTTP header itself :)
>
> OK. But wait and see what they end up creating for the initial entries.
I've already seen them, they're fine.
> Can you give a plausible example of an extension that could be sufficiently
> defined without an accompanying document? Where the only information
> available to the user is what is contained in the IANA registry?
Not off the top of my head.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
