- From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:40:04 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hello all, 2011/1/10, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>: > On 10.01.2011 08:42, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> First of all, how could anubody applied for warning code if there was >> no popssibility to do that? RFC2616 mentiined no ways to do that. I > > You write an Internet Draft, and as part of the draft you note that > there's currently no registry, and that somebody needs to deal with that > (maybe yourself by defining it, by using the RFC "updates" relation, or > by asking the IESG or the Working Group for feedback). > > But the first step should be to actually show that a new Warning code is > needed. Could you please do that first? Currently I have at least one idea for creation of Warnong code - exactly with the same reason that has been mentioned for 'Headers-Not-Recognized' field from draft-yevstifeyev-headers-not-recognized. > >> propose to create such regsitry since I have some ideas as for new >> Warning codes. >> >> I do not share the opinion of those who say we have nothing to place >> there. RFC2616 mentioned nearly 5 Warning codes that should be put in >> such regsitry. > > RFC2616 defines Warning Codes. But that doesn't necessarily mean a > registry is needed. But the same situation is with the status codes. We have created the regsitry for it. Once more, I am strongly concerned we need such regsitry. Mykyta > >> ... > > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 07:40:36 UTC