Subject: p6 -14 version and ticket #274

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:24:31 +0300

Hello httpbis WG members,

According to TracTickets, ticket #274 on IANA registry for warn-codes 
(used in "Warning" header field, see 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-14#section-3.6) 
was opened 2 month ago.  During this time there were 2 version of p6 
posted, as I remember, none of which dealt with this issue.

I've recently asked Mark Nottingham, WG chair, regarding the process of 
this issue. He pointed me to 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/274.  I haven't 
tracked this page, but I see it doesn't represent any progress on this 
issue.  I haven't also tracked discussions on this list, so I'm 
currently not aware of any discussions occurred on this issue.

So my question is: Whether WG is going to include my proposal in your p6 
in its new version?  Or there is an another agreement?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:48:22 +0200

On 28.04.2011 16:24, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> ...

"The WG" are the people around here on this mailing list.

So far I haven't seen a lot of enthusiasm for the proposal. As one of 
the editors, I prefer to avoid adding stuff that nobody needs.

More discussion of course is welcome, that's why we're tracking it.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:10:29 +0300

> More discussion of course is welcome, that's why we're tracking it.
My personal opinion is that choosing to leave the definition of the 
Warning header field without such registry is unacceptable just because 
the values used in it should be tracked somewhere.  RFC 2616 left this 
issue unresolved.

Claiming that this header field is not used, I think is makes sense to 
re-register it as "deprecated" or "historic", per RFC 3864.  Otherwise, 
my proposal is quite useful, IMO.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev