- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:30:13 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
On 02.06.2010 11:17, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 Applied with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/937>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 24 July 2010 15:31:00 UTC