RE: [Asrg] CRI Header

I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with proposing a new
RFC2822 header.  If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, then so be it.
I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers.

However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate in the
meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed 2822 headers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM
> To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header
>
>
> On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich
> [SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote:
> > At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean
> [SMTP:eric@purespeed.com]
> > >wrote:
> > >8<...>8
> > > > ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one?  There
> isn't an RFC
> > > > 2822
> > > > registration process that I am aware of.
> > >
> > >IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the
> introduction
> > >of an
> > >new one?  Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as effective?'
> > >[..]
> >
> > Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard
> > gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard
> is approved
> > then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is similar to the
> > HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to indicate gzip
> > encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5).
>
> I understand that, thanks.  But the issue I was trying to
> interpose is that
> perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for
> the proposal is
> the type of question that should be asked at this state.
>
> -e
>

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg