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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:25:16 +0100
Message-ID: <4D2ADE8C.7050404@gmx.de>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
CC: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 10.01.2011 08:42, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 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

You write an Internet Draft, and as part of the draft you note that 
there's currently no registry, and that somebody needs to deal with that 
(maybe yourself by defining it, by using the RFC "updates" relation, or 
by asking the IESG or the Working Group for feedback).

But the first step should be to actually show that a new Warning code is 
needed. Could you please do that first?

> 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.

RFC2616 defines Warning Codes. But that doesn't necessarily mean a 
registry is needed.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 January 2011 10:25:50 GMT

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