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

Re: Using extension points without registries, was: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:42:49 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimPS6afGoP8W-YU6C5m-wHoQOXAx4xVptCkwFM+@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hello all,

First of all, how could anubody applied for warning code if there was
no popssibility to do that? RFC2616 mentiined no ways to do that. I
propose to create such regsitry since I have some ideas as for new
Warning codes.

I do not share the opinion of those who say we have nothing to place
there. RFC2616 mentioned nearly 5 Warning codes that should be put in
such regsitry.

I am strongly cpncerned we should create such registry.  And please
find anoter comment below.

2011/1/9, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>:
> On 09.01.2011 12:03, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
>> Agreed, we don't need to create a registry until we have something to put
>> in it.
>> If someone writes an I-D that creates additional Warning codes, that same
>> I-D can:
>> 1) Note that a registry needs to be created, or
>> 2) Suggest creating the registry and contain the relevant IANA guidelines
>> etc.
>> In the case of (1) what I would expect is *if* the I-D progresses then at
>> some point in the future before it is sent to IESG, either
>> a) a separate I-D is produced&  progressed in parallel to create the
>> registry and IANA guidelines
I afree with this case. Moreover, how will we name the draft that
creates the registry and defined a number of values.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>> b) the IANA guidelines etc are put in the original I-D (essentially the
>> same as (2) above but the original I-D author does not expend time writing
>> IANA guidelines before receiving feedback on their actual proposal).
>> Ben
> As a matter of fact, HTTPbis currently defines (at least) three new
> registries (method names, cache control codes, auth schemes). The
> absence of these registries hasn't caused these extension codes to be
> used before.
> Summarizing: I'm reluctant to add new registries unless we *know* we
> need them. In the past 11 years, apparently nobody has asked for a new
> Warning code before. That might tell us something.
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 January 2011 07:43:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:56 UTC