Re: [IANA #1280425] Re: Content-Disposition missing from IANA HTTP field name registry

Hi Amanda,


On Thu, 7 Sept 2023, 20:01 Amanda Baber via RT, <iana-issues@iana.org>
wrote:

> Hi Mark, Lucas, all,
>
> It appears that we inadvertently deleted "Content-Disposition" in a July
> update, when we added "Content-Digest." That registration has been
> restored, and I can confirm that no other registrations have been removed
> since an update Mark requested in April 2022 [IANA #1228851] that concerned
> some provisional entries:
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields
>
> I apologize for the error. Our registry update process includes checking a
> diff before committing, but that step may have been missed in this instance.
>

Thanks for the explanation!

As one of the authors the requested Content-Digest registration and
approved the IANA actions we requested I'm happy to take some of the blame
here :-)

Cheers
Lucas


> Best regards,
>
> Amanda Baber
> IANA Operations Manager
>
> On Thu Sep 07 04:19:37 2023, mnot@mnot.net wrote:
> > 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/
>
>