Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00.txt

On 05.09.2010 23:58, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> 3.2.  Disposition Type
>
>     Other disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way as
>     "attachment" (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8).
>
> Shouldn't that read "Unknown disposition types"?
> or to be verbosely explicit "Unknown or unhandled disposition types"?
>
> Seems odd to block future extensions like this. RFC2183 also speaks
> about unknown disposition types, not other.

Yup. Fixed with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/989>.

> I do not see HTTP being very much different than other message
> interchange forms in this regard. Worth noting as a reflection is that a
> very large proportion of deployed HTTP agents do not have screen output
> at all but present their output in other manners.
>
>> From a quick eyeball over the IANA registry many of the entries there
> may be applied in an HTTP context as-is, depending on the client
> application and not protocol. Not just the initial "inline" and
> "attachment" types. Which makes me question the wording of 3.5 as well a
> bit, but it's quite good as it is.

It currently says:

"3.5 Extensibility

Note that Section 9 of [RFC2183] defines IANA registries both for 
disposition types and disposition parameters. This registry is shared by 
different protocols using Content-Disposition, such as MIME and HTTP. 
Therefore, not all registered values may make sense in the context of HTTP."

Do we need to change something here?

Best regards, Julian