- From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:29:01 -0800
- To: "Joris Dobbelsteen" <joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com>
- Cc: "WWW WG (E-mail)" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
After reading your message several times, I *think* you agree that
it would be a good idea to establish a registry, using the criterion
that "Values and their meaning must be documented in an RFC."
But you write:
On the other hand, creating a registry makes it possible to get a
long list of mostly useless headers, you don't know where to use
them for. If you want to set up a registry, ensure that you make
some good RULES for adding headers to the list. Make sure the list
doesn't get poluted: all the useless names.
My initial thought was that the requirement that the header name
be documented in an RFC was a high enough standard to meet; the IESG
has not been very generous about allowing Internet-Drafts to become
RFCs. If a specification makes it to the RFC stage, then this
suggests it has had enough review to be "somewhat useful" rather
than "mostly useless."
I suppose that a case could be made that the requirement should
be stricter, e.g., "Values and their meaning must be documented in
*standards-track, historic, or informational* RFC". That is, don't
let experimental RFCs add things to the registry.
I'm not sure about this, though. We might be micro-managing.
-Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 19:29:10 UTC