W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 2001

RE: SOAP IANA considerations

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:35:45 -0800
To: "'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>, Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <001e01c17ea6$5840d7c0$06432099@larrypad>
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.

The HTTP protocol specification RFC 2616 does create IANA
registries  (for content-coding and transfer-coding
value tokens) and makes reference to several others
(for charset, media type, and language tags). That there is
no registry for other protocol elements (headers and error codes)
is not an accident.

So I discourage you from trying to create a HTTP header
registry so that you could add "SOAPAction" to it.

Larry (as former HTTP WG chair)
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 22:42:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:38 UTC