- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 06:19:08 +0200
- To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, iana@iana.org
- Cc: Guoye Zhang <guoye_zhang@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hm. That's a good theory, but 6266 registered it in with the 'http' protocol, so there should have been two entries. I've CC:ed IANA, as they'll no doubt have records of what happened, and will be able to illuminate us and correct things. Cheers, > On 7 Sep 2023, at 1:11 am, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Guoye, > > I'm not an expert here (pun 100% intended) but I wonder if the IANA instructions in RFC 9110 [1] meant that Content-Disposition wasn't migrated to the field name registry because its protocol is listed as "MIME" in the previous table https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml > > From RFC 9110: > > > IANA has moved all entries in the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" and "Provisional Message Header Field Names" registries (see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/>) with the protocol 'http' to this registry and has applied the following changes: > > > [1] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#name-field-name-registration > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:55 PM Guoye Zhang <guoye_zhang@apple.com> wrote: > It appears that RFC 6266 isn’t reflected in the HTTP field name registry: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields/http-fields.xhtml > > Guoye -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2023 04:19:24 UTC