Re: extend production

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>>
>> Thanks to both you and Jim; that's what I needed.
>>
>> BTW, if 2518 is undergoing revision, the HTTP header registrations  
>> should be updated (or made; I think I see a new one in there?); see  
>> RFC3864/BCP90.
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, this also applies to BIND and REDIRECT. Cullen, 
> should I do that for BIND right away (I don't think we'll need another 
> WGLC for that...).

Speaking of BIND: this draft only contains an update for the "DAV" 
header 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-12.html#dav.request.header>). 
Furthermore, RFC2518bis is expected to duplicate this extension. Thus it 
seems to me that we don't need to add any templates here.

The situation for REDIRECT is different; it introduces two new headers; 
thus I'll update the draft accordingly.

Best regards, Julian