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

Re: SOAP IANA considerations

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:50:14 -0800
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "'Mark Baker'" <mbaker@planetfred.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20011206145014.C14952@mnot.net>

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:35:45PM -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
> 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.
> So I discourage you from trying to create a HTTP header
> registry so that you could add "SOAPAction" to it.

That was the approach taken by the P3P WG. My motivation for asking
was that, at the time, there was no clear way to put a stake in the
ground and claim a header, from a W3C perspective. The default was to
use the HTTP extension framework.

We eventually got advice that it would probably be good enough to
publish an RFC, but it ate up a lot of time to get to that point. Of
course, we probably just didn't ask the right people. ;)

An index certainly would be a nice thing.


Mark Nottingham
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 23:03:58 UTC

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