- From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:22:53 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
08.01.2011 19:24, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 08.01.2011 16:58, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> ... >> Many LC comments referred to that it would be uninteresting and useless >> to implement this. Maybe one of them seems the most interesting for me >> - it said about the 'Warning' headers that should be used in this >> occasion. This, IMO, is one of the most suitable for me and this >> technology. But if we implement this now using Warning, one problem is > > ... > > I don't see how (a) using HTTP warnings would resolve the problems > other people see, (b) how the use of warnings makes this proposal any > better, nor (c) that warnings are actually applicable here (see > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-12.html#rfc.section.3.6>). At the moment no any, and I want to define a new one. In spite of this there is no any registry (see below). I ask the WG for opinion on should we create it or not? > >> absence of IANA registry for Warning codes, such as for Status codes. >> As this message is now sent to httpbis WG mailing list, I ask you if >> there is a sense in creating such registry? > > We might create a registry when/if when there are actually requests > for new Warning values. However no one can actually do this since there is no such registry. So I think there should be the appropriate registry. Will the WG agree with me? > >> ... > > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2011 06:23:06 UTC