Re: First reactions to mandatory draft

From: Scott Lawrence (lawrence@agranat.com)
Date: Thu, Jan 22 1998


Message-Id: <199801222141.QAA30900@devnix.agranat.com>
To: ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:41:57 -0500
From: "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>
Subject: Re: First reactions to mandatory draft


>>>>> "PL" == Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com> writes:

PL> I would suggest something like this:

PL> Man:	Registered-Header1, Reg-Hedr2, 23-, 35-
PL> Extension: URL1; ns=23, URL2; ns=35

PL> For registered header, no "Extension:" is needed. The only complication in
PL> Man over what is required for simple mandatory registered headers is that
PL> "23-" is a prefix, not an exact match whole header. The concession to
PL> decentralized extensibility is that "Extension" does not have to be listed
PL> in the Man header.

  The difficulty with:

    Man: Register-Header

  is that it doesn't convey what _version_ of the definition of
  Registered-Header you are using.  If, for example, I wish to send:

    Scooby: dooby; doo

  Where 'Scooby: dooby' was defined by RFC4000 and the 'doo'
  extention was defined by RFC4100.  What I want to express is that
  you should reject the request unless you understand RFC4100, not
  that you understand some older version of the Scooby header.  So I
  would add:

    Man: http://ietf.org/rfcs/rfc4100.txt

  As for headers, it might be usefull for me to add:

    Vary: Scooby

  so that intervening proxies would understand that the response to
  this request also depends on the Scooby header - that way the proxy
  can do the right thing even if it does not implement 4100.

--
Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/