Opened 12 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

#247 closed design (wontfix)

consider adding an "intended usage" field to our IANA registries

Reported by: julian.reschke@… Owned by:
Priority: later Milestone: unassigned
Component: non-specific Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:


Cyrus Daboo in

"...One thing the SASL registry has is the "Usage" column which I think we definitely should adopt..."

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…

This looks attractive, but I'm a bit concerned about how much time it would take to agree upon the classifications for each protocol element we have registered. We'd also have to update RFC3684 if we want to include the field for http headers.

Also, it may be difficult to classify some headers, because they're used by a specific application of HTTP. E.g., PUT and DELETE aren't used at all by browsers, but they're commonly used by WebDAV and Subversion. how should we classify them?

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by mnot@…

  • Priority changed from normal to later

comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by mnot@…

  • Severity changed from Waiting for Expert Review to Active WG Document

comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by mnot@…

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

Closing with no action.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.