RE: First reactions to mandatory draft

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (frystyk@w3.org)
Date: Thu, Jan 22 1998


Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980122160329.00cce310@localhost>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:03:29 -0500
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>, "'Koen Holtman'" <koen@win.tue.nl>
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: lawrence@agranat.com, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Subject: RE: First reactions to mandatory draft

At 12:05 1/22/98 -0800, Paul Leach wrote:
>One effect of Koen's suggestion is to make a simple thing even more
>complicated.  The simple thing is what Yoran wants -- a new _registered_
>header name which must be understood by the server or rejected.
>
>I would suggest something like this:
>
>Man:	Registered-Header1, Reg-Hedr2, 23-, 35-
>Extension: URL1; ns=23, URL2; ns=35

The spec already allows you to do

	Man: Registered-Header1, Reg-Hedr2

and you don't need anything else except the M- method name prefix if you
don't want to support extensions that are not registered in the IANA
registry. Using an extra Extension header is just complicating the design.

Note that this is different from the question of supporting or not
supporting dynamic extensions. You may just as well want (or not want) to
support dynamic extensibility of IANA registered header fields.

Henrik
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk