On 08.01.2011 16:58, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
Many LC comments referred to that it would be uninteresting and useless
to implement this. Maybe one of them seems the most interesting for me
- it said about the 'Warning' headers that should be used in this
occasion. This, IMO, is one of the most suitable for me and this
technology. But if we implement this now using Warning, one problem is
> ...
I don't see how (a) using HTTP warnings would resolve the problems other
people see, (b) how the use of warnings makes this proposal any better,
nor (c) that warnings are actually applicable here (see
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-12.html#rfc.section.3.6>).
absence of IANA registry for Warning codes, such as for Status codes.
As this message is now sent to httpbis WG mailing list, I ask you if
there is a sense in creating such registry?
We might create a registry when/if when there are actually requests for
new Warning values.
...
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf