ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Message Header Field Registry - revised proposal

2002-02-21 11:33:16

At 10:00 AM 2/21/02 -0800, Jeff Stephenson wrote:
(1) There's only one place to look to see header fields.
(2) When a temporary/proprietary field moves to standardized, the
maintainers of the registry need only change a status field rather than
move the entry between registries.

Admittedly neither of these is a big deal, but they are IMHO advantages
to a single registry over a split registry and I see no advantages the
other way around; maybe someone can enlighten me.

Speaking for myself:

I would like to be able to use the (permanent) registry entries as a basis for constructing URNs for use in (say) a generic message archive and classification system. This is my motivation for doing this work.

Having transient, non-permanent entries would break the RFC 1737 persistence requirements for URNs.

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham(_dot_)Klyne(_at_)Baltimore(_dot_)com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------