Re: p6 -14 version and ticket #274

28.04.2011 17:48, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 28.04.2011 16:24, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Hello httpbis WG members,
>>
>> According to TracTickets, ticket #274 on IANA registry for warn-codes
>> (used in "Warning" header field, see
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-14#section-3.6)
>> was opened 2 month ago.  During this time there were 2 version of p6
>> posted, as I remember, none of which dealt with this issue.
>>
>> I've recently asked Mark Nottingham, WG chair, regarding the process of
>> this issue. He pointed me to
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/274.  I haven't
>> tracked this page, but I see it doesn't represent any progress on this
>> issue.  I haven't also tracked discussions on this list, so I'm
>> currently not aware of any discussions occurred on this issue.
>>
>> So my question is: Whether WG is going to include my proposal in your p6
>> in its new version?  Or there is an another agreement?
>> ...
>
> "The WG" are the people around here on this mailing list.
>
> So far I haven't seen a lot of enthusiasm for the proposal. As one of 
> the editors, I prefer to avoid adding stuff that nobody needs.
>
> More discussion of course is welcome, that's why we're tracking it.
My personal opinion is that choosing to leave the definition of the 
Warning header field without such registry is unacceptable just because 
the values used in it should be tracked somewhere.  RFC 2616 left this 
issue unresolved.

Claiming that this header field is not used, I think is makes sense to 
re-register it as "deprecated" or "historic", per RFC 3864.  Otherwise, 
my proposal is quite useful, IMO.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 15:10:15 UTC