RFC-to-be 9114 (draft-ietf-quic-http) includes the following note to indicate that the registrations have a status of permanent and the Change Controller is the IETF. Should a similar statement be included in this document?
From RFC-to-be 9114:
The initial allocations in these registries created in this document
are all assigned permanent status and list a change controller of the
IETF and a contact of the HTTP working group (ietf-http-wg@w3.org).
In addition, note that the padding in the Settings, Stream Types, and Error Codes differs from what appears in the IANA registry. IANA included the following note when they notified us that their actions for RFC-to-be 9114 were complete:
NOTE: In the new registries, the padding has been adjusted for consistency from one
registry to another and with iana.org/assignments/quic. We understand that there may
be a request to change it.
We have asked Mike (as editor of RFC-to-be 9114) to review, as the padding for the HTTP/3 registries is now inconsistent with the padding for the HTTP/2 registries. Please review and dicuss and let us know if any updates are needed.
MikeBishop
commented
2 years ago
RFC-to-be 9114 (draft-ietf-quic-http) includes the following note to indicate that the registrations have a status of permanent and the Change Controller is the IETF. Should a similar statement be included in this document?
From RFC-to-be 9114: The initial allocations in these registries created in this document are all assigned permanent status and list a change controller of the IETF and a contact of the HTTP working group (ietf-http-wg@w3.org).
In addition, note that the padding in the Settings, Stream Types, and Error Codes differs from what appears in the IANA registry. IANA included the following note when they notified us that their actions for RFC-to-be 9114 were complete:
NOTE: In the new registries, the padding has been adjusted for consistency from one registry to another and with iana.org/assignments/quic. We understand that there may be a request to change it.
We have asked Mike (as editor of RFC-to-be 9114) to review, as the padding for the HTTP/3 registries is now inconsistent with the padding for the HTTP/2 registries. Please review and dicuss and let us know if any updates are needed.