I'm pretty sure that it's clear we should move forward with proposing a new
RFC2822 header. If a BOF wants to throw an X in front of it, then so be it.
I'll proceed br producing a draft with real 2822-type headers.
However, if someone out there is interested, we could interoperate in the
meantime using X or optional headers as well as with proposed 2822 headers
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric(_at_)infobro(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:11 PM
To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'Eric Dean'; asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header
On Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 AM, Yakov Shafranovich
[SMTP:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com] wrote:
At 11:15 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:54 PM, Eric Dean
[SMTP:eric(_at_)purespeed(_dot_)com]
wrote:
8<...>8
ok..optional headers or do we introduce a new one? There
isn't an RFC
2822
registration process that I am aware of.
IMHO the question at this stage is 'optional headers or the
introduction
of an
new one? Would a comparable RFC 2822 header field be as effective?'
[..]
Both an "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers should be defined. Until the standard
gets approved, the "X-" headers will be used, once the standard
is approved
then both the "X-CRI" and "CRI" headers are used. This is similar to the
HTTP protocol where both "gzip" and "x-gzip" are used to indicate gzip
encoding (RFC 2616, section 3.5).
I understand that, thanks. But the issue I was trying to
interpose is that
perhaps the consideration of which would be more effective for
the proposal is
the type of question that should be asked at this state.
-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg