* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Ticket #224 (closed design: fixed)

Opened 4 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

Header Field Classification

Reported by: mnot@pobox.com Owned by:
Priority: normal Milestone: 13
Component: non-specific Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:
Origin:

Description

RFC2616 classifies headers (e.g., general, entity, request, response), but these classifications are sometimes misleading and often misused.

E.g., request-headers are defined as

The request-header fields allow the client to pass additional information about the request, and about the client itself, to the server. These fields act as request modifiers, with semantics equivalent to the parameters on a programming language method invocation.

We should discuss whether or not these classifications are helpful, and alternative approaches (e.g., allowing more than one classification for each header, to allow them to be more specific).

See also #104.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

Agreement in Maastricht that header classification is less than useful.

comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by fielding@gbiv.com

From [1163]:

Remove header field classifications.

Addresses #224 and #104

comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by fielding@gbiv.com

  • Status changed from new to closed
  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 13

comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution incorporated deleted

comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from reopened to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

comment:6 Changed 2 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Summary changed from Header Classification to Header Field Classification
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.