Draft: draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers

Commentary: Merge three " add to table " into one request to " add these to the table " Create a new registry for quota fields . 
 looks good ! 
 I made some edits : ad an addressable subsection for iana - ratelimit - parameters add , to iana table reference specification sections in IANA registries removed normative parts from IANA mention IANA table in { { quota - policy } } Could you please PTAL ? 
 ooops I missed your comment :) Ok , let 's merge . 
 Since parameters are always allowed in Limit we could define a " registry " and add them subsequently as soon as implementers needs them . They can be used to specify :  throughputs request distribution other policies All data in parameters is informative . 
 I assume there must be previous art in keeping a registry like this that we can mimic , but I ca n't think of a good example off the top of my head that would n't be using a separate registry or document to manage that . What 's your thinking about where to keep this registry ? 
 registries are usually maintained by IANA : we can check with if that 's possible ... 
 We can pretty easily define a registry . You include a section in the RFC . See You define a table that is the registry , and meanings of the columns , and perhaps populate it with the initial entries . The WG decides some rules , like " X- " is left for experimentation . There must be something written ( it can be an internet draft or something else on the net ) , whether a set of " experts " need to review for comliance and clarity , and so on . 
 If you 'd like , I can make a PR that provides the initial text for this next week . 
 Yes , that would be great 
 Can you give me an initial set of fields ( even if it 's just one or two ) , and an example , and a pointer to which section in the current draft ? thanks . 
 Hi Thanks for your support ! To make best use of your time , I 'd wait for to be merged ( waiting for mnot 's review ) so you can PR directly vs . WRT the parameter registry : currently the initial set is just : See : Do you have a proposal for the registration policy ? 
 Thanks , I 'll wait . I think it should be expert review . That means that there should be a document describing the parameter , and that the experts can be directed to verify that the documentation is clear and unambiguous , and that there is no significant overlap with the parameters already defined . The other choices are " specification required " and " first - come first - served . " 
 we just merged structured fields in RateLimit Headers ! 
 Thanks for the ping , I saw :) I 'll propose a PR soon . 
 I think it needs to be tweaked , since it 's just defined as a " quota " registry in that PR . Should it be a ratelimit fields registry ?
Paragraph (version B):
References to "ThisRFC" in the IANA Considerations section would be
replaced with the RFC number when assigned.
Paragraph (version A):
Other parameters are allowed and can be regarded as comments.
Paragraph (version B):
Other parameters are allowed and can be regarded as comments.  They
ought to be registered within the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
RateLimit Parameters Registry", as described in iana-ratelimit-
parameters.
Paragraph (version A):
This section registers the "RateLimit-Limit" field in the "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry" registry (SEMANTICS).
Paragraph (version A):
This section registers the "RateLimit-Remaining" field in the
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry" registry
(SEMANTICS).
Paragraph (version A):
This section registers the "RateLimit-Reset" field in the "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry" registry (SEMANTICS).
Paragraph (version B):
IANA is requested to update one registry and create one new registry.
Paragraph (version B):
IANA is requested to create a new registry to be called "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP) RateLimit Parameters Registry", to be
located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-ratelimit-parameters
[3].  Registration is done on the advice of a Designated Expert,
appointed by the IESG or their delegate.  All entries are
Specification Required (IANA, Section 4.6).
Paragraph (version B):
Parameter name: The parameter name, conforming to SF.
Paragraph (version B):
Field name: The RateLimit field for which the parameter is
registered.  If a parameter is intended to be used with multiple
fields, it has to be registered for each one.
Paragraph (version B):
Description: A brief description of the parameter.
Paragraph (version B):
Specification document: A reference to the document that specifies
the parameter, preferably including a URI that can be used to
retrieve a copy of the document.
Paragraph (version B):
Comments (optional): Any additional information that can be
useful.