- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:17:14 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Hi, in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/122>, Mark wrote: > I'm not too worried about counting the angels to determine whether or not this is a HTTP header. P3 A.1 says: > > HTTP is not a MIME-compliant protocol. However, HTTP/1.1 messages > MAY include a single MIME-Version general-header field to indicate > what version of the MIME protocol was used to construct the message. > Use of the MIME-Version header field indicates that the message is in > full compliance with the MIME protocol (as defined in [RFC2045]) > > . > > Note that it's described as a general-header field. > > I propose we just update the registration, point to the appropriate part (wherever it ends up) and allow people to dereference it to get to this text if they're interested. I just checked; we *do* have "MIME-Version" mentioned in the IANA registry update instructions. What's open is: 1) Should Part 1 mention it as a General header field? 2) For the header field registration, what status should we specify? (see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-4.2.1>). My take: 1) Add this to <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rfc.section.3.5> for now (understanding that that part may go away soon anyway). 2) "standard", as MIME-Version is defined in httpbis and RFC 2045, both being on the standards track. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 09:17:58 UTC