- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:19:13 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In message <2a1159da8e681e616476b4aef7ed14be@mail.mxes.net>, Mark Nottingham wr ites: >On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:12:13 +0200, Andreas Petersson wrote: >> On 10/5/11 12:38 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> In message <20111005123338.320c38d4@hetzer>, Andreas Petersson >>> writes: >>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt >>>> >>>> Please comment. >>> >>> ] proto-kv = "proto=" ( "http" | "https" ) >>> >>> Given Speedy, Websockets and other such experiments, shouldn't this >>> allow any protocol-name ? >>> >> >> Yes, I guess that sounds quite reasonable. But will every protocol >> always only have one unique name, that everyone would use, without >> need >> for discussion? >> >> Another, perhaps a non-issue, would be name changes (somewhat like >> jabber vs. xmpp or yp vs. nis). > >Maybe establish a (lightweight!) registry? Or is there one already? As in: ] proto-kv = "proto=" ( "http" | "https" | x-token ) ] x-token = "X-" node ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2011 23:19:38 UTC