Subject: Re: [hybi] header definitions in -13

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:38:28 +0200

2011/8/31 Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>:
> Anyway... I really believe that a document that defines a new header field
> should have an easy-to-find subsection for each header field that defines
> the syntax and semantics. That doesn't mean that that part needs to say
> *everything* about that header field, but it should be there as a starting
> point. Right now this is not the case.

I agree. Check RFC 2616 (HTTP) or RFC 3261 (SIP). Both contain a
section defining the meaning of each header:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-20

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:01:12 +0100

Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,

Hi Julian,

> I realize that everybody is getting tired of tuning the document. I 
> also realize that that IANA considerations at least have been 
> reorganized -- thanks for that.
>
> Anyway... I really believe that a document that defines a new header 
> field should have an easy-to-find subsection for each header field 
> that defines the syntax and semantics. That doesn't mean that that 
> part needs to say *everything* about that header field, but it should 
> be there as a starting point. Right now this is not the case.

I think definitions in the IANA registration section are what you are 
asking for. Maybe they are missing some cross-references.

If that is not what you are asking for, then please provide an example 
of how such a definition might look like for a single header field.

Thanks,
Alexey

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:04:42 +0200

2011/9/2 Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>:
> I think definitions in the IANA registration section are what you are asking
> for. Maybe they are missing some cross-references.
>
> If that is not what you are asking for, then please provide an example of
> how such a definition might look like for a single header field.

IMHO IANA section is not the good place to widely describe all the
implied new headers in this specification. IANA section is like a
"mandatory" section to make happy some people/organizations. IMHO the
document itself (out of the IANA section) should have a specific
section describing (not in depth) each header.

For example, RFC 3261 (SIP) has a section describing each header field:
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-20

and also there is an IANA section for that:
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-27.3

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>