[Ietf-message-headers] For review: Content-Base (update for http)

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Thu, 01 September 2011 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-message-headers@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-message-headers@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED5B21F9992 for <ietf-message-headers@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.931
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sfXJzCj2lSkT for <ietf-message-headers@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAD821F9998 for <ietf-message-headers@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxj17 with SMTP id 17so860711yxj.31 for <ietf-message-headers@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=k6A35SyLwL9QmyjpAir8gTEmdsa18coku9hZQZutuJM=; b=da2WtoFMzwCtht8Jxj66FtfqGt74ByCucqA3iT/7AKP8TOidD+dgj48ql6WydXlxxs bMd8+mrXXA8B8nnLz3EOIk0XViCJ03KOj/5ZP5lsJl36W+knqkwyNP/Uh9qrDB3WB3AC MevN9j37zusCssVImr7MYYEnVBYTzH1c/JSrQ=
Received: by 10.68.59.74 with SMTP id x10mr688632pbq.90.1314910053095; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.98.5 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 22:46:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybpNtcAxjTvWHSxx2P7iXOSiLr+9xL99bj4aqtS26rK1NQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
Subject: [Ietf-message-headers] For review: Content-Base (update for http)
X-BeenThere: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <ietf-message-headers.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-message-headers>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-message-headers@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:46:00 -0000

On 30 August 2011 10:36, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> The same as with MIME header field:
>> Specification document(s):
>>    RFC 2068, Section 14.11
>>    <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-14.11>

I've intentionally used the RFCs *obsoleting* Content-Base
instead of the obsolete RFCs *specifying* Content-Base,
because the request modifies existing (and wrt the status
incorrect) registry entries.  The original RFCs can be
found by their references in RFC 2616 and RFC 2557.  The
original RFCs are mentioned in the "related information"
of the templates.

It's apparently possible to have two "specifications" in
registry entries, so I'll just *add* the original RFC as
suggested by you (see below for the http Content-Base).

-Frank
-----------------------------------------------------
PERMANENT MESSAGE HEADER FIELD REGISTRATION TEMPLATE:

Header field name:
   Content-Base

Applicable protocol:
   http

Status:
   obsoleted

Author/Change controller:
   IETF

Specification document(s):
   RFC 2616 section 19.6.3,
   <URL:http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-19.6.3>
   RFC 2068, section 14.11,
   <URL:http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-14.11>

Related information:
   Content-Base was originally specified in RFC 2068 and
   later obsoleted in RFC 2616.  The MIME header field
   Content-Base was also obsoleted (RFC 2557 section 12).