- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:20:18 PST
- To: "Chris Newman" <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@w3.org>
- Cc: <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
> 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. Doing so would be inconsistent with the stateless model for HTTP. I believe the conclusion to draw from this discussion is that while header field prefixes do add complexity, and that such complexity was found unnecessary in other protocols, it's needed here. I don't know whether this design rationale belongs in the document before it's published as an RFC. Probably a brief paragraph to that effect would be useful, if only to point out that this isn't an example that is necessarily to be followed for other protocols. Larry
Received on Monday, 21 December 1998 13:27:25 UTC