08.01.2011 19:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
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>).
At the moment no any, and I want to define a new one. In spite of this
there is no any registry (see below). I ask the WG for opinion on
should we create it or not?
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.
However no one can actually do this since there is no such registry. So
I think there should be the appropriate registry. Will the WG agree
with me?
...
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf