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 18:24:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4D289DC9.70208@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, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
On 08.01.2011 16:58, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> ...
> Many LC comments referred to that it would be uninteresting and useless
> to implement this.  Maybe one of them seems the most interesting for me
> - it said about the 'Warning' headers that should be used in this
> occasion.  This, IMO, is one of the most suitable for me and this
> technology.  But if we implement this now using Warning, one problem is
 > ...

I don't see how (a) using HTTP warnings would resolve the problems other 
people see, (b) how the use of warnings makes this proposal any better, 
nor (c) that warnings are actually applicable here (see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-12.html#rfc.section.3.6>).

> absence of IANA registry for Warning codes, such as for Status codes.
> As this message is now sent to httpbis WG mailing list, I ask you if
> there is a sense in creating such registry?

We might create a registry when/if when there are actually requests for 
new Warning values.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 8 January 2011 17:25:15 GMT

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