W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 1998

Re: Looking for comments on the HTTP Extension draft

From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 23:33:45 -0800 (PST)
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.981219233200.23748A-100000@elwood.innosoft.com>
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> >FYI, there was a long discussion in the USEFOR WG on header field prefixes
> >for headers with various characteristics.  At the last IETF meeting of
> >USEFOR, the room reached the conclusion that adding such prefixes was
> >unnecessary complexity.  The current model where all headers are optional 
> >seems sufficient for extensibility.  There was even a discussion of
> >labelling hop-to-hop headers in Netnews which is similar to the HTTP proxy
> >problem, and the same conclusion about unnecessary complexity was reached.
> 
> What I believe you are saying is that HTTP is sufficient as is without an
> extension mechanism like the one proposed. I think the experience from the
> multiple ways HTTP is actually being extended clearly indicates that this
> is not the case.

I was suggesting that the optional header model is sufficient for
extensible headers.  There probably does need to be something along the
lines of the EHLO command added to SMTP.  Sorry I wasn't clear.

		- Chris
Received on Sunday, 20 December 1998 02:35:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:25 GMT