Re: [Ietf-message-headers] provisional registration Accept-Datetime header

Bjoern Hoehrmann <> Thu, 20 May 2010 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C7A3A6C91 for <>; Thu, 20 May 2010 08:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dVLC1PX0XLIA for <>; Thu, 20 May 2010 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id DB8F43A6C56 for <>; Thu, 20 May 2010 08:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 15:34:48 -0000
Received: from (EHLO hive) [] by (mp069) with SMTP; 20 May 2010 17:34:48 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19KE4cWVwFKz6UeKXPKtXupKmBibwYVkbvI4m8B+F mQVZrmdzMV7BRw
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
To: Herbert van de Sompel <>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:34:50 +0200
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "Michael L. Nelson" <>,
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] provisional registration Accept-Datetime header
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for header fields used in Internet messaging applications." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 15:35:04 -0000

* Herbert van de Sompel wrote:
>Forgive me for the brevity, but I thought I was following the procedure
>described in
>=> For a very brief overview of the use of the proposed headers, see
> , section "The Memento Solution, Part 1".
>=> The templates list 2 email addresses: my personal one and the
> group where tech discussions about the Memento
>framework take place.

You cited as the specification for
the two header fields. I think the specification (not the registration)
should include an email address where comments on the headers could be
sent and it should include a definition for the header fields. Consider
how RFC 2616 defines the 'Allow' header, to pick a random example:

  The Allow entity-header field lists the set of methods supported
  by the resource identified by the Request-URI. The purpose of this
  field is strictly to inform the recipient of valid methods
  associated with the resource. An Allow header field MUST be
  present in a 405 (Method Not Allowed) response.

      Allow   = "Allow" ":" #Method

This defines what kind of header it is, what its purpose is, and what
the syntax for the header field ist. There is no corresponding text in
your specification, it is not clear, for example, whether one can use
other time zones than GMT in the header fields. I am not saying the two
headers cannot pass review without adding the email address and a good
definition, but it would sure be nice to have those.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·