Re: [Ietf-message-headers] [W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / request for advice

[SM <sm at resistor.net>]

At 06:11 26-01-2009, eduardo.casais at areppim.com wrote:
> 3) QUESTIONS.
>
> We would be grateful to get advice from the IETF with respect to handling
> the
> coexistence of X- and non-X- prefixed fields, and the phasing out of
> deprecated
> fields.
>
> 3.a: What is the IETF policy regarding the registration of X- prefixed
> fields?

The following is personal opinion and not advice about IETF policy 
.  Refer to BCP 90 for the registration procedures.

> 3.b: What is the IETF policy regarding the promotion of X- prefixed header
> fields (registered or not) to non-X-prefixed, standard registered ones?

X- prefixed header fields are generally not registered.  For the 
example you mentioned, the header field was registered with 
"depreciated" as the status.

> 3.c: What is the IETF policy regarding the simultaneous deployment and
> utilization of two sets of header fields, which have the same semantics, one
>
> comprising X- prefixed and the other equivalent non-prefixed fields?

You can depreciate the existing one in favor of the one defined in your RFC.

> 3.d: What is the IETF policy regarding the deprecation and discontinuance of
>
> HTTP header fields?

See Section 4.5 of BCP 90 about Change Control.  RFC 4229 defines the 
initial contents of a permanent IANA registry for HTTP header fields.

Regards,
-sm

_______________________________________________
Ietf-message-headers mailing list
Ietf-message-headers at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers