- From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 07:53:52 +0100
- To: LMM@acm.org, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>
- cc: "'Mark Baker'" <mbaker@planetfred.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
--On 01-12-06 14.35 -0800 Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote: > I don't think that a "registry" of HTTP headers is appropriate, > Rather, additional HTTP headers should be documented in IETF > standards-track documents, if they are to be considered extensions > to the HTTP protocol defined by the IETF. > > It is useful to have an index of headers for implementers > to know where various headers are defined (as, say, an update > to RFC 2076), but such an index is not a registry. Why not have IANA "just" be able to receive registrations without any review in that case, so we have one such index? Questions: (a) Is it the inventor of the header which makes the decision whether he should go to the IETF or not, i.e. who makes the descision on whether an header is an extension to the HTTP protocol? (b) Regardless of (a), how do you handle the case when one header is in use, and IETF happen to (by mistake) define something with the same name? (c) What is the difference between a registry and an index on a webpage which IANA (for example) take care of? My point is that I don't see why we can not have one body which accept email (or a web-form or whatever) where people can register the headers they "invent" without any review. Just to minimize the risk of collissions. Nothing mandatory regarding registration of new things. Completely volontary. I call such a central "live" index a registry. paf -- a bit confused
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 03:16:06 UTC