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

"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> Wed, 10 October 2007 17:05 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 1Ifezh-0005YX-Q0; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:05:13 -0400
Received: from ietf-message-headers by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ifezg-0005Up-9A for ietf-message-headers-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:05:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ifezf-0005Ug-Vu for ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:05:11 -0400
Received: from sam.opera.com ([213.236.208.81]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfezZ-0000aG-KH for ietf-message-headers@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:05:11 -0400
Received: from annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com (c5144430c.cable.wanadoo.nl [81.68.67.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by sam.opera.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l9AH4pHD026567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:04:52 GMT
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:05:05 +0200
To: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] HTTP header registration question
From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Organization: Opera Software ASA
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <op.tza9zqen64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com> <470BFA49.2070605@ninebynine.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <op.tzzq2rey64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
In-Reply-To: <470BFA49.2070605@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.21 (Linux)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.1/4521/Wed Oct 10 07:58:01 2007 on sam.opera.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
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

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:01:45 +0200, Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>  
wrote:
> My comments concern procedural matters - I make no judgement here about  
> the technical content of the proposal...

Feel free to make comments on the technical content though!


> 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).

Ok. I believe that I can do that tomorrow as the two review weeks have  
passed then. (I initially e-mailed it on Thu 27 Sep 2007.)


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

Ok.


> 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).

http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/ now includes the syntax  
definitions.


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

What are the requirements exactly?


Thanks a lot by the way!


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>


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