At 02:12 PM 10/3/01 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
my concern is that we'll register the pollution, and thereby confer
legitimacy on it.
That's part of why I focused on RFC-defined headers only.
...
At 02:59 PM 10/3/01 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
maybe we could have two registries - one of standard headers, and another
with discouraged headers.
Well, as I said in my response to Charles, I considered something like that
but in the end didn't because it wasn't clear to me that the benefit
justified the additional effort.
But I am open to other viewpoints.
...
At 12:28 PM 10/3/01 -0700, Dan Wing wrote:
Playing devil's advocate with that idea, and remembering some active
discussion on DRUMS, I'll ask:
Which registry would contain "In-Reply-To:" and "References:"?
I think the criterion would be simple: is it defined in a standards-track
[or IESG-approved] RFC? If so, it goes in the "standard" registry. (But
if you tell me there are headers with different definitions in different
RFCs, I have to think again.)
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham(_dot_)Klyne(_at_)MIMEsweeper(_dot_)com>
------------------------------------------------------------