#208 closed design (fixed)
IANA registry for cache-control directives
| Reported by: | julian.reschke@… | Owned by: | julian.reschke@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 10 |
| Component: | p6-cache | Severity: | Active WG Document |
| Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
Add a IANA registry for cache-control directives.
Proposal: as with other HTTP related registries, make it "specification required"
Change History (11)
comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:3 follow-up: ↓ 4 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
We still need to figure out how to get RFC 5861's extensions into the registry.
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
Replying to julian.reschke@…:
We still need to figure out how to get RFC 5861's extensions into the registry.
Proposal: as long as there's only one affected spec (5861) (and that spec happens to be written by our chair), the simplest thing to do is just to send a registration request to IANA once the registry is up.
We may reconsider this if more cache directive definitions are published before we are done.
comment:5 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
I know we've talked about this on the phone before, but I forget -- did we just consider adding 5861's registrations to the IANA Considerations section here, but not listing them elsewhere?
comment:6 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:7 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:8 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 10
comment:9 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution incorporated deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
comment:10 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from reopened to closed
comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…
- Severity changed from Candidate WG Document to Active WG Document
![(please configure the [header_logo] section in trac.ini)](https://www.ietf.org/images/ietflogotrans.gif)
Actually, the other registry procedures require "IETF review", so be consistent with *that*.