On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Martin Stecher wrote:
the ICAP protocol defines in section 4.3: "User-defined header
extensions are allowed. [... They] MUST follow the "X-" naming
convention [...]"
There are already a bunch of user-defined headers in use,
unfortunately only two of them have been published officialy
(X-Client-IP and X-Subscriber-ID in
draft-beck-opes-icap-subid-00.txt), many more have been exchanged
between organisations.
With the growing number of ICAP client and server implementations we
see more and more user-defined headers being introduced.
Unfortunately there are already some with the identical meaning but
different names.
To ensure further interoperability even beyond the standard feature
set, I propose that we publish the X-headers that are in use.
Would it be a good idea to follow [1] and [2] with this?
Looks like those IDs attempt to solve the same problem.
[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-06.txt
[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http-00.txt
Alex.
--
| HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
| all of the above - PolyBox appliance