Re: Proposed HTTP field name registry updates - feedback solicited

Hi Mark,

FWIW I'm ok with that.

Have a nice day,
R:

Il giorno gio 31 mar 2022 alle ore 09:00 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> ha
scritto:

> 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
>
>