- From: Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:30:47 -0800
- To: Jim Gettys <Jim.Gettys@hp.com>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Jim wrote: > As I think I mentioned before, the IETF revised policies on us > in RFC 2434, in the time between when we submitted the draft > standard and its approval. No one noticed this change at the time. > > In sections 3.5 and 3.6 of we define content and transfer coding > values that require registration. > > RFC 2435 requires us to specify whether new values need to > be reviewed, for what purpose and/or if they need approval. > We are silent on the approval process. It might also be a good idea to point out (in the revised version of RFC2616) that there is a <soon-to-be?> BCP "Registration procedures for message header fields" Klyne, Nottingham, Mogul http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-07.txt According to the IETF ID Tracker, the IESG has approved an earlier draft as a BCP (back in May) but there are some minor revisions that require "AD followup". I think it would be safe to add a non-normative reference, given that this ID is far enough through the IESG process that it should have an RFC number long before the Full Standard for HTTP/1.1 could be an RFC. (Yes, it might be naive to trust the IESG process this much.) I would suggest putting something in 4.2 (Message Headers) along the lines of: All HTTP header field-names SHOULD be registered according to the procedure in [draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-07]. I believe that one of my co-authors on this I-D has already prepared an initial list of field-names including fields from all extant HTTP-related RFCs. -Jeff
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 14:30:52 UTC