W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

#122 (MIME-Version not listed in P1, general header fields)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:17:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4C06219A.9090702@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Hi,

in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/122>, Mark wrote:

> I'm not too worried about counting the angels to determine whether or not this is a HTTP header. P3 A.1 says:
>
>    HTTP is not a MIME-compliant protocol.  However, HTTP/1.1 messages
>    MAY include a single MIME-Version general-header field to indicate
>    what version of the MIME protocol was used to construct the message.
>    Use of the MIME-Version header field indicates that the message is in
>    full compliance with the MIME protocol (as defined in [RFC2045])
>
> .
>
> Note that it's described as a general-header field.
>
> I propose we just update the registration, point to the appropriate part (wherever it ends up) and allow people to dereference it to get to this text if they're interested.

I just checked; we *do* have "MIME-Version" mentioned in the IANA 
registry update instructions.

What's open is:

1) Should Part 1 mention it as a General header field?

2) For the header field registration, what status should we specify? 
(see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-4.2.1>).

My take:

1) Add this to 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.3.5> 
for now (understanding that that part may go away soon anyway).

2) "standard", as MIME-Version is defined in httpbis and RFC 2045, both 
being on the standards track.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 09:17:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:20 GMT