Re: [Ietf-message-headers] [websec] HTTP 'Origin' permanent and provisional

We've been talking for a while about revising 3864; it needs a lot more than this done.

Cheers,

On 14/02/2013, at 7:54 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-02-13 21:43, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Well.
>>> 
>>> You make it sound as if it's ok to run two different registries with partly overlapping values. It's not. It's a bug in the way IANA handles this. This is what needs to be fixed.
>>> 
>>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
>> I don't want to turn this into a process debate, but having a provisional registry like this allows you to create interoperable implementations while the document is still at draft. I often see a push to get a document published because we need the IANA assignments for products.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Of course they could still do this with a single registry where provisional entries are somehow marked (with an asterisk?). That way we wouldn't get to a situation where we have double entries.
> 
> The key thing being that both registries share the same namespace, so, by definition, an entry can not appear in both. If it does, there's a process/software problem.
> 
> Of course the trivial way to do this right is to implement a *single* registry, and to just store a flag for each entry.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-message-headers mailing list
> Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/