W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:34:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4D28218A.2020406@gmx.de>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
CC: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, ietf-message-headers@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
On 08.01.2011 07:21, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This document summarizes the Last Call for
> draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized.
>
> The Last Call was requested on 11 December, 2010 by Alexey Melnikov and
> was announced on 13 November, 2010. The period of 32 days has been
> assigned for this Last Call, that ends on 14 January, 2011.
>
> The Last call has been requested for version -08. However during the
> Last Call 3 new versions appeared. The latest one is -11, submitted on 8
> January, 2011

If a draft changes three times during LC, there may be a problem. I 
encourage you to go back to the drawing board, and think hard(er about 
the feedback you got, in particular 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010OctDec/0645.html>.

I also mentioned at least once that in many frameworks this is 
essentially un-implementable, as different types of header fields are 
processed by different, independent layers in the code, and thus there's 
no way some part of the code will ever *know* which headers have been 
"processed". Do you think that this is not a problem?

> ...
>     * Syntax: Changed. Now is not /token**/but /1*VCAHR /for definition
>       of the name of the header.
> ...

Why?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 8 January 2011 08:35:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:36 GMT