Subject: [Ietf-message-headers] Inquiry: registration of "body" from mailto: URI

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:57:54 +0900

The mailto: URI uses a query syntax to indicate the values
of various email headers. There is one special case, namely
that a header field name of 'body' does not indicate an
actual header field, but gives the text that should go into
the body of the (prototype) message.

Bruce Lilly suggested that, in order to avoid that anybody else
would define a header field named 'body' in the future, this
header field should be duly registered with IANA.
(see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Apr/0002).

I think this is a very good idea. I have prepared a registration
template in my draft-duerst-mailto-bis (unfortunately, that part
didn't make it into the -02.txt version I submitted yesterday).

Because the situation is a bit special, I would like to get
your expert feedback.

The registration template currently looks as follows:

    Header field name:
       Body

    Applicable protocol:
       none

    Status:
       reserved

    Author/Change controller:
       IETF

    Specification document(s):
       Internet-Draft draft-duerst-mailto-bis-03.txt
       (Note to RFC Editor: Replace this with
        RFC YYYY (RFC number of this specification))

    Related information:
       This registration serves to reserve the
       header field name 'Body' for use only in
       mailto: URIs and in similar situations where
       the body of a message has to be given an
       explicit name.

Regards,    Martin. 

_______________________________________________
Ietf-message-headers mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 05:45:16 +0100

>         none

At least mail.  Maybe unnecessary to reserve it for say http,
but with news2mail gateways I'm not sure.  Gateway operators
can manage, and there's of course no news header field "body".

>        Internet-Draft draft-duerst-mailto-bis-03.txt

It's already "reserved" (implicitly) in RfC 2368, no need to
wait for 2368bis.
                        Bye, Frank