Re: First reactions to mandatory draft

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (
Date: Thu, Jan 22 1998

Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:36:19 -0500
To: Jeffrey Mogul <>, "Scott Lawrence" <>
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <>
Subject: Re: First reactions to mandatory draft 

At 14:06 1/22/98 PST, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

>  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:

This would only be necessary if the Scooby header had been registered in
IANA multiple times as different versions with different semantics. I guess
this could happen - the redifinition of the Accept-Encoding header field
could count as different versions, for example.


	Man: Scoopy

would indeed point to the header field registered by IANA and nothing else.

>Somewhat verbose, alas, but a little more compact than a URL,
>and perhaps more robust.

URIs should always be made as persistent as the objects they point to,
which is independent of the syntax.

>Note that this is still not quite enough, unless we make a
>rule that this means "unconditional compliance" to the referenced
>RFC.  Which is not such a big deal; if RFC4100 has some SHOULDs
>as well as MUSTs, then one can write RFC4101, describing a
>particular profile of requirements from RFC4100, and then use
>urn:ietf:RFC:4101 instead.

Yes indeed - I would imagine that RDF (Resource description Framework) [1]
will be used to describe exactly which features are supported by a
particular name.


Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium