RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Josh Cohen (Exchange) wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
[...]
> > We've got one. It's called EXPERIMENTAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> Well, its no good if a standards track document cant reference it.

You can't reference it, but can't you just do a copy&paste of the parts
you need?

One of the main objections to making Mandatory proposed is that we are
not convinced, as a community, that using Mandatory is superior to all
the other ways of extending HTTP.  So we should not recommend that
everybody make exclusive use of Mandatory by making it proposed. 

I am against making a strong IETF recommendation to use Mandatory. 
However, I don't feel that Mandatory is so bad that it must not be used at
all. 

So if you just want to use Mandatory in a single standards track protocol,
I would have no big technical objections to that.  I'm more than happy to
leave the Mandatory vs. new headers vs. new methods vs. whatever tradeoff
to you.

To pull this use of Mandatory off procedurally, you'd have to copy&paste
the parts of Mandatory you really need into your own standards track
document.  Maybe you'd need to add a disclaimer that the use of elements
of the Mandatory mechanism in this particular protocol should not be seen
as an endorsement of the idea that Mandatory is the one true way of
extending HTTP. 

Why not?  I'd never do it myself, because I would just define a bunch of
new headers and/or methods as a way of extending HTTP, but I would not
object if you go this route.  Of course others may have more extreme
views.

Koen.

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 1999 09:51:57 UTC