- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 10:02:05 +1100
- To: iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org
- Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From what I can see 'provisional' came up due to confusion during the transfer between registries. Please register it as 'permanent' as originally requested. Cheers, > On 8 Dec 2021, at 7:55 am, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org> wrote: > > Hi Mark and Roy, > > We have received the following request to register a provisional http field name. Please see below. > > It looks like the request was initially submitted to the message headers mailing list instead of the HTTP working group. We're copying the correct mailing list on this request. > > If this is OK, should the status be changed to "provisional" instead of "standard" as listed below? > > Thanks, > > Sabrina Tanamal > Lead IANA Services Specialist > > ==== > > Hi, > > The W3C Web Performance Working Group has defined an HTTP header field > "Server-Timing" in the following draft: > https://www.w3.org/TR/server-timing/#the-server-timing-header-field > Please review and let us know if there are any objection to adding > it as a provisional header (per BCP 90) > > ------------ > Header field name: Server-Timing > Applicable protocol: http > Status: standard > Author/Change controller: W3C > Specification document: Server Timing > https://www.w3.org/TR/server-timing/ Section 3. > ------------ > > > > On Mon Dec 06 10:42:33 2021, carine@w3.org wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> Following the procedure described in RFC 3864, and after the first >> review step: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-message- >> headers/ZvewKVf8oDnl9FE2h5pWHV_7eXA/ >> since no objection was raised, could this header be published as >> a provisional header field? >> Let me know if seomthing else is needed. >> >> Thank you. > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2021 23:02:24 UTC