- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:09:36 +0100
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-03-01 11:00, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-03-01 00:12, Henrik Nordström wrote: >> ons 2012-02-29 klockan 23:51 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: >> >>> "Should we state the default behavior for extension auth-params? Is it >>> "must-ignore"? >> >> Yes. If not the scheme can not be extended in future while keeping >> compatibility with existing clients. >> >>> Should we recommend that new schemes establish procedures for defining >>> new parameters?" >> >> Yes, or alternatively we might want to define a auth-param namespace for >> mandatory parameters. >> >> Regards >> Henrik > > Actually, we should also remind people of describing how to define new > parameters. Proposal: > > o Definitions of new schemes ought to define the treatment of > unknown extension parameters. In general, a "must-ignore" rule is > preferable over "must-understand", because otherwise it will be > hard to introduce new parameters in the presence of legacy > recipients. Furthermore, it's good to describe the policy for > defining new parameters (such as "update the specification", or > "use this registry"). > > (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/334/334.2.diff>) > > > Best regards, Julian Hearing no objections... -> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1562>
Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 20:10:19 UTC