Re: Final (?) procedural question.

Jim wrote:

> As I think I mentioned before, the IETF revised policies on us
> in RFC 2434, in the time between when we submitted the draft
> standard and its approval.  No one noticed this change at the time.
> In sections 3.5 and 3.6 of we define content and transfer coding
> values that require registration.
> RFC 2435 requires us to specify whether new values need to
> be reviewed, for what purpose and/or if they need approval.
> We are silent on the approval process.

It might also be a good idea to point out (in the revised version
of RFC2616) that there is a <soon-to-be?> BCP

	"Registration procedures for message header fields"
	Klyne, Nottingham, Mogul

According to the IETF ID Tracker, the IESG has approved an earlier
draft as a BCP (back in May) but there are some minor revisions
that require "AD followup".  I think it would be safe to add a
non-normative reference, given that this ID is far enough through
the IESG process that it should have an RFC number long before
the Full Standard for HTTP/1.1 could be an RFC.  (Yes, it might
be naive to trust the IESG process this much.)

I would suggest putting something in 4.2 (Message Headers)
along the lines of:

	All HTTP header field-names SHOULD be registered
	according to the procedure in [draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-07].

I believe that one of my co-authors on this I-D has already
prepared an initial list of field-names including fields from
all extant HTTP-related RFCs.


Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 14:30:52 UTC