Re: [Ietf-message-headers] HTTP header registration question

Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org> Tue, 09 October 2007 22:02 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-message-headers-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfN9S-0002GP-GJ; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:02:06 -0400
Received: from ietf-message-headers by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IfN9Q-0002EU-Up for ietf-message-headers-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:02:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfN9Q-0002DM-Jy for ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:02:04 -0400
Received: from mail.songbird.com ([208.184.79.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfN9J-0005v3-6u for ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:02:04 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mail.songbird.com [208.184.79.10]) by mail.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l99M1Rh6004149; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 15:01:33 -0700
Message-ID: <470BFA49.2070605@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:01:45 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] HTTP header registration question
References: <op.tza9zqen64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.tza9zqen64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
Cc: ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <ietf-message-headers.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-message-headers@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers>, <mailto:ietf-message-headers-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-message-headers-bounces@ietf.org

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> For a W3C specification "Enabling Read Access for Web Resources" the W3C
> WAF WG would like to register three HTTP headers: Access-Control,
> If-Method-Allowed, and Referer-Root (sic). Can I do that as attached or
> is it preferable to have three separate templates? Also, does the
> specification itself need to include anything that points back to the
> header registry, does it need to include the template, etc.? This did
> not became clear from reading RFC     3864. Thanks for the information!

My comments concern procedural matters - I make no judgement here about the
technical content of the proposal...

The registration would probably have to be provisional until such time as the
specification documents achieve some kind of standard-equivalent status (e.g.
W3C REC).  The status information is generally "provisional"  for headers in the
provisional registry.  If this is W3C WG activity for which there is general
consensus on the direction if not the final details, then I's suggest that
provisional registration should be progressed sooner rather than later
(including a note of the venue for ongoing development of the specification).

Three separate templates may be preferable - they will lead to separate entries
in the registry.

With reference to other discussion, in which you said: "the other two are both
mentioned and it's defined what they are to contain. (They are request headers.)
Maybe they should have syntax definitions as well just to make it complete."

... I think it may help if:
(a) they had syntax definitions (or reference to some existing definition), and
(b) if it's not obvious, that there be some indication to where in the document
the headers are defined (section number of suchlike).

The standard of definition required will be higher for permanent registration.

#g
--

(Although I'm currently a designated reviewer for registrations, my comments
here are personal, and carry no formal import.)

-- 
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact


_______________________________________________
Ietf-message-headers mailing list
Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers