- From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 23:33:45 -0800 (PST)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > >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. > > What I believe you are saying is that HTTP is sufficient as is without an > extension mechanism like the one proposed. I think the experience from the > multiple ways HTTP is actually being extended clearly indicates that this > is not the case. I was suggesting that the optional header model is sufficient for extensible headers. There probably does need to be something along the lines of the EHLO command added to SMTP. Sorry I wasn't clear. - Chris
Received on Sunday, 20 December 1998 02:35:25 UTC