- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 09 Dec 1995 19:37:55 -0800
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Dave and I chose areas for subgroups where there had been discussion
> on the list, some disagreement, and no convergence. This isn't the
> case for 'registration'.
>
> Could you elaborate what it is that you think needs to be registered?
> I'm wary about trying to invent adminstrative procedures in an
> otherwise technical standard.
HTTP allows a number of fields to be extended independent of the
protocol version. Some are already covered by the MIME registry at IANA.
Others exist with no defined mechanism for notifying other implementors
of commonly defined extensions. These include:
Methods
Status codes
Entity Header Fields
Content codings
Transfer codings
Note that this list does not include things like PEP and Link Relationships,
which also need a registry, but not necessarily the same registry.
This task needs to be done before any HTTP document becomes standards-track,
so I do think that it justifies a subgroup and a separate specification
(just as MIME did it).
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Saturday, 9 December 1995 19:47:35 UTC