Subject: Re: [IANA #1218027] registration of Server-Timing as provisional header field

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 10:02:05 +1100

From what I can see 'provisional' came up due to confusion during the transfer between registries. Please register it as 'permanent' as originally requested.

Cheers,

> On 8 Dec 2021, at 7:55 am, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark and Roy, 
> 
> We have received the following request to register a provisional http field name. Please see below. 
> 
> It looks like the request was initially submitted to the message headers mailing list instead of the HTTP working group. We're copying the correct mailing list on this request.
> 
> If this is OK, should the status be changed to "provisional" instead of "standard" as listed below? 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sabrina Tanamal
> Lead IANA Services Specialist
> 
> ====
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The W3C Web Performance Working Group has defined an HTTP header field
> "Server-Timing" in the following draft:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/server-timing/#the-server-timing-header-field
> Please review and let us know if there are any objection to adding 
> it as a provisional header (per BCP 90)
> 
> ------------
> Header field name: Server-Timing
> Applicable protocol: http
> Status: standard
> Author/Change controller: W3C
> Specification document: Server Timing
> https://www.w3.org/TR/server-timing/  Section 3.
> ------------
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon Dec 06 10:42:33 2021, [email-masked] wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> Following the procedure described in RFC 3864, and after the first
>> review step:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-message-
>> headers/ZvewKVf8oDnl9FE2h5pWHV_7eXA/
>> since no objection was raised, could this header be published as
>> a provisional header field?
>> Let me know if seomthing else is needed.
>> 
>> Thank you.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/