Hello Graham,
Just some cross-checks, because I don't seem to have understood
RFC 3864 correctly.
At 17:38 04/10/27, Graham Klyne wrote:
>Martin,
>
>Two nits concerning the header field registration (copied below).
>
>1. Specify that the entry is for the permanent header field registry,
assuming the relevant conditions are satisfied; e.g.
>[[
> IANA is herewith requested to register the Archived-At header field
> in the Permanent Message Header Fields Registry, per RFC 3864, as follows:
>]]
What I wanted was to make sure that we get a provisional registration
as soon as possible, and then can move to the permanent registration
as the draft moves forward. That was the way I understood RFC 3864.
Are you saying that I shouldn't care about the provisional registration?
Or should I do the provisional totally separately? Rereading
RFC 3864, I now seem to understand that registering separately
is how it should be done.
>2. You need to decide if this is or is not to be usable with netnews. If
it is to be usable in netnews, then (for clarity) there should be two
registration templates, one for mail and one for netnews, otherwise the same.
I think it could be potentially useful for netnews, although netnews
has URI schemes that make it possible to refer to a news item, and
the way netnews is distributed makes it somewhat easier to find them
than email messages. Also, adding an 'Archived-At' header to netnews
can be trickier than for email unless it would be done at the source.
>If you are really not sure about netnews, then I suggest you leave it out
and separately request an entry for netnews in the provisional header field
registry: it can be moved later if netnews community think that's reasonable.
That seems like a reasonable solution.
Regards, Martin.