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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Mon, 10 January 2011 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7538728C0EE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 23:43:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.364
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ukcpRca0iucZ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 23:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0C028C0D9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 23:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1PcCQb-0005Gl-63 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 07:44:33 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <evnikita2@gmail.com>) id 1PcCPT-0005Cl-Tt for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 07:43:23 +0000
Received: from mail-gy0-f171.google.com ([209.85.160.171]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <evnikita2@gmail.com>) id 1PcCPQ-0001Sq-Ce for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 07:43:23 +0000
Received: by gyg13 with SMTP id 13so9466001gyg.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:42:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ovq0x1lM0pIo4itODdoBIvYIHOn3cKEtOAYsK6GFPuk=; b=WBACGVNIp+KnCoJGQBYjBzjVd0iQ9Gg8QDvuoejNLBP+XnjubjntmegrcjJDE9vYuq LgEe19O9TmNWR7X6fuZsWwzAK7yVEtFcrA5BvWEmFMi4RRYxtX53ux7LUJurFjGt4Yyr MQ4nu0TZXLCJs9nr3UFGcSdGOLNMt4TRneOm8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ReoNsTtpxZdK5qRP305NXd3yacgD5CmKs91jsSUlnPk9iQjI5lOUhlDAc9AxetQqmQ 7innbbF7sLc2+JrR8piYOeXSBp2yVomWOg36QA+IgoPkJbAft2SceOWOOKQsATiRjj6p M30yRWXmUu/EUmI0myN2zQ+Mldl00Ycc3U00U=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.8.16 with SMTP id l16mr1010697ybi.383.1294645369856; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:42:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.53.6 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 23:42:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D29A405.9090602@gmx.de>
References: <4D280272.6090402@gmail.com> <4D28218A.2020406@gmx.de> <4D283A42.3080303@gmail.com> <4D2847E1.9090004@gmx.de> <4D288998.9020001@gmail.com> <4D289DC9.70208@gmx.de> <4D29543D.5060503@gmail.com> <4D298BDD.40209@gmx.de> <5139EF8D-DA8B-4DB9-9172-2303C8DFC394@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4D29A405.9090602@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:42:49 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimPS6afGoP8W-YU6C5m-wHoQOXAx4xVptCkwFM+@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Received-SPF: pass
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599, DKIM_SIGNED=0.001, DKIM_VERIFIED=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1PcCPQ-0001Sq-Ce 3723527a60bd5aa34fd9ca475ff7242f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Using extension points without registries, was: [Ietf-message-headers] Last Call Summary on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTimPS6afGoP8W-YU6C5m-wHoQOXAx4xVptCkwFM+@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10034
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1PcCQb-0005Gl-63@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 07:44:33 +0000

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
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.

I am strongly cpncerned we should create such registry.  And please
find anoter comment below.

2011/1/9, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>:
> On 09.01.2011 12:03, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
>> Agreed, we don't need to create a registry until we have something to put
>> in it.
>>
>> If someone writes an I-D that creates additional Warning codes, that same
>> I-D can:
>> 1) Note that a registry needs to be created, or
>> 2) Suggest creating the registry and contain the relevant IANA guidelines
>> etc.
>>
>> In the case of (1) what I would expect is *if* the I-D progresses then at
>> some point in the future before it is sent to IESG, either
>> a) a separate I-D is produced&  progressed in parallel to create the
>> registry and IANA guidelines
I afree with this case. Moreover, how will we name the draft that
creates the registry and defined a number of values.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>> b) the IANA guidelines etc are put in the original I-D (essentially the
>> same as (2) above but the original I-D author does not expend time writing
>> IANA guidelines before receiving feedback on their actual proposal).
>>
>> Ben
>
> As a matter of fact, HTTPbis currently defines (at least) three new
> registries (method names, cache control codes, auth schemes). The
> absence of these registries hasn't caused these extension codes to be
> used before.
>
> Summarizing: I'm reluctant to add new registries unless we *know* we
> need them. In the past 11 years, apparently nobody has asked for a new
> Warning code before. That might tell us something.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>