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: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:22:53 +0200
Message-ID: <4D29543D.5060503@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
08.01.2011 19:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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>).
At the moment no any, and I want to define a new one.  In spite of this 
there is no any registry (see below).  I ask the WG for opinion on 
should we create it or not?
>
>> 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.
However no one can actually do this since there is no such registry.  So 
I think there should be the appropriate registry.  Will the WG agree 
with me?
>
>> ...
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2011 06:23:06 GMT

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