Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 09.01.2011 07:22, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 08.01.2011 19:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 08.01.2011 16:58, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Many LC comments referred to that it would be uninteresting and useless
>>> to implement this. Maybe one of them seems the most interesting for me
>>> - it said about the 'Warning' headers that should be used in this
>>> occasion. This, IMO, is one of the most suitable for me and this
>>> technology. But if we implement this now using Warning, one problem is
>> > ...
>>
>> I don't see how (a) using HTTP warnings would resolve the problems
>> other people see, (b) how the use of warnings makes this proposal any
>> better, nor (c) that warnings are actually applicable here (see
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-12.html#rfc.section.3.6>).
>>
> At the moment no any, and I want to define a new one. In spite of this

I meant the warning header field in general, not specific values.

> there is no any registry (see below). I ask the WG for opinion on should
> we create it or not?

I can only speak for me, and I already said that I don't think that the 
use of Warning would enhance your proposal.

>>> absence of IANA registry for Warning codes, such as for Status codes.
>>> As this message is now sent to httpbis WG mailing list, I ask you if
>>> there is a sense in creating such registry?
>>
>> We might create a registry when/if when there are actually requests
>> for new Warning values.
> However no one can actually do this since there is no such registry. So
> I think there should be the appropriate registry. Will the WG agree with
> me?

See above: no, *I* don't think we should create a registry at this point.

Best regards, Julian