- 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>
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