Re: *NOT* using extension points without registries, was: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

2011/1/10, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>:
> On 10.01.2011 08:42, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> First of all, how could anubody applied for warning code if there was
>> no popssibility to do that? RFC2616 mentiined no ways to do that. I
>
> You write an Internet Draft, and as part of the draft you note that
> there's currently no registry, and that somebody needs to deal with that
> (maybe yourself by defining it, by using the RFC "updates" relation, or
> by asking the IESG or the Working Group for feedback).
>
> But the first step should be to actually show that a new Warning code is
> needed. Could you please do that first?

Currently I have at least one idea for creation of Warnong code -
exactly with the same reason that has been mentioned for
'Headers-Not-Recognized' field from
draft-yevstifeyev-headers-not-recognized.

>
>> propose to create such regsitry since I have some ideas as for new
>> Warning codes.
>>
>> I do not share the opinion of those who say we have nothing to place
>> there. RFC2616 mentioned nearly 5 Warning codes that should be put in
>> such regsitry.
>
> RFC2616 defines Warning Codes. But that doesn't necessarily mean a
> registry is needed.

But the same situation is with the status codes. We have created the
regsitry for it. Once more, I am strongly concerned we need such
regsitry.

Mykyta
>
>> ...
>
> Best regards, Julian
>