W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 2001

Re: SOAP IANA considerations

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:29:01 -0800
Message-Id: <200112111929.LAA13209@wera.pa.dec.com>
To: "Joris Dobbelsteen" <joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com>
Cc: "WWW WG (E-mail)" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
After reading your message several times, I *think* you agree that
it would be a good idea to establish a registry, using the criterion
that "Values and their meaning must be documented in an RFC."

But you write:

    On the other hand, creating a registry makes it possible to get a
    long list of mostly useless headers, you don't know where to use
    them for. If you want to set up a registry, ensure that you make
    some good RULES for adding headers to the list. Make sure the list
    doesn't get poluted: all the useless names.
    
My initial thought was that the requirement that the header name
be documented in an RFC was a high enough standard to meet; the IESG
has not been very generous about allowing Internet-Drafts to become
RFCs.  If a specification makes it to the RFC stage, then this
suggests it has had enough review to be "somewhat useful" rather
than "mostly useless."

I suppose that a case could be made that the requirement should
be stricter, e.g., "Values and their meaning must be documented in
*standards-track, historic, or informational* RFC".  That is, don't
let experimental RFCs add things to the registry.

I'm not sure about this, though.  We might be micro-managing.

-Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 19:29:10 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:45 EDT