W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2001

RE: SOAP IANA considerations

From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 07:53:52 +0100
To: LMM@acm.org, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>
cc: "'Mark Baker'" <mbaker@planetfred.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-ID: <23728991.1007711632@localhost>
--On 01-12-06 14.35 -0800 Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:

> I don't think that a "registry" of HTTP headers is appropriate,
> Rather, additional HTTP headers should be documented in IETF
> standards-track documents, if they are to be considered extensions
> to the HTTP protocol defined by the IETF.
> It is useful to have an index of headers for implementers
> to know where various headers are defined (as, say, an update
> to RFC 2076), but such an index is not a registry.

Why not have IANA "just" be able to receive registrations without any
review in that case, so we have one such index?


(a) Is it the inventor of the header which makes the decision whether he
should go to the IETF or not, i.e. who makes the descision on whether an
header is an extension to the HTTP protocol?

(b) Regardless of (a), how do you handle the case when one header is in
use, and IETF happen to (by mistake) define something with the same name?

(c) What is the difference between a registry and an index on a webpage
which IANA (for example) take care of?

My point is that I don't see why we can not have one body which accept
email (or a web-form or whatever) where people can register the headers
they "invent" without any review. Just to minimize the risk of collissions.
Nothing mandatory regarding registration of new things. Completely

I call such a central "live" index a registry.

   paf -- a bit confused
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 03:16:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:17 UTC