At 15.06 -0500 02-02-10, Keith Moore wrote:
I have also tried to suggest a 'middle ground' which would allow
easier and faster registration of extensions while still providing
community review. While I'm not entirely comfortable with this
proposal, I do accept that it can take a long time to get an RFC
published, and that this can be a barrier to deployment of useful
new features. We've had some success with other 'expedited review'
processes for other kinds of protocol extensions (charsets,
content-types), and I what I proposed is similar to those mechanisms.
If no RFC is published, where would the specification of the
new header name be stored? It should be easily accessible
to anyone. Can it be stored in the header name registry itself?
Would you accept registrations of "warning signs" of header names
not recommended (with explanation of why)?
Would you accept registration of "no consensus" where a header
name is registered together with the different views on how this
header should be used or not used?
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/