W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2022

Re: Proposed HTTP field name registry updates - feedback solicited

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:57:14 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-ID: <20220331065714.GD23808@1wt.eu>
Hi Mark,

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:08:49PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 1. The following header fields are all registered as 'provisional', are based
> upon Internet-Drafts that expired a long time ago, and have not seen any
> recent deployment to the best of my knowledge. The proposal is to remove them
> from the registry.
> 
>   - Optional, Resolution-Hint, Resolver-Location: draft-girod-w3-id-res-ext 
>   - Compliance, Non-Compliance: Mogul, J., Cohen, J., and S. Lawrence,
>     "Specification of HTTP/1.1 OPTIONS messages
>   - SubOK, Subst: Mogul, J. and A. van Hoff, "Duplicate Suppression in HTTP"
>   - UA-Color, UA-Media, UA-Pixels, UA-Resolution, UA-Windowpixels: Masinter,
>     L., Montulli, L., and A. Mutz, "User-Agent Display Attributes Headers"
> 
> 2. RFC2068 defined "URI" and "Public", but 2616 obsoleted it without carrying
> them forward. They are currently registered as 'permanent'; the proposal is
> to mark them as 'obsoleted'.
> 
> 3. Similarly, 2068 defined "Content-Version" and "Derived-From" for use with
> PATCH, but they were not carried into RFC5789. The proposal is to mark them
> as 'obsoleted'; they are currently 'permanent'.

I wasn't even aware of these and do not remember having ever met any of
them. No concern from me!

Cheers,
Willy
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2022 06:57:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 31 March 2022 06:57:43 UTC