Re: Looking for comments on the HTTP Extension draft

I only skimmed the HTTP extensions draft and got the impression it was
unnecessarily complex.  I won't have time to give a detailed critique
before going on vacation, so I hope someone else will.  The following
point is important:

On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Koen Holtman wrote:
>  - The header field prefixes stuff is just unnecessary complexity in
>    my opinion.  It would be easier for everyone to put all extension
>    related data as decl-extensions in the Man or Opt header.

FYI, there was a long discussion in the USEFOR WG on header field prefixes
for headers with various characteristics.  At the last IETF meeting of
USEFOR, the room reached the conclusion that adding such prefixes was
unnecessary complexity.  The current model where all headers are optional 
seems sufficient for extensibility.  There was even a discussion of
labelling hop-to-hop headers in Netnews which is similar to the HTTP proxy
problem, and the same conclusion about unnecessary complexity was reached.

		- Chris

Received on Friday, 18 December 1998 12:37:52 UTC