ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-02.txt

2002-01-30 11:05:16

In general, I support the idea of a central (cross-protocol) header
field name registry, but I think it's totally unacceptable to confer 
any more legitimacy on nonstandard header fields, or to define a
procedure which would effectively allow parties to bypass the
established procedures for extending protocols that use these 
header fields. 

To this end, I strongly recommend that no Normative field be 
added to the registry without an IETF consensus process
(fields defined in existing IETF standards could be added with IESG
approval), and no Provisional field be added to the registry without
either IETF consensus or IESG approval.  

That way, we can document existing uses of header fields without 
creating a mechanism to "stake a claim" for new fields that are 
ill-advised, poorly designed, or poorly defined.

Keith

p.s. I'd also prefer "header fields" to "headers".  The header is the
structure at the beginning of an email message (NNTP message, 
HTTP message, whatever), and it is composed of zero or more fields.