RE: Evaluation: draft-klyne-msghdr-registry - Registration procedures for message header fields to BCP

["Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>]

> 
>                     Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain

> Jon Peterson        [   ]     [   ]       [ x ]      [   ]


The largest issue I have with this document is I'm unsure what degree of
compliance is anticipated. Is this document a mandate that all existing
protocols must register their headers in the Permanent Message Field
Registry? Or only all specifications published from this point forward? What
about protocols that already have existing IANA registries for headers - are
they expected/required to publish twice, or to deprecate their existing
registries?

The document says that IANA should pre-provision the Permanent Message Field
Registry with values from draft-klyne-hdrreg-mail and
draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http. Both are expired since 2002 (though the
latter, at least, is still in the I-D repository). I suppose these should
have gone forward with this document as a bundle? I also wonder, though,
that given the extensive list of RFCs in section 2.2, examples from mail and
http alone would have been investigated here.

I think this document is a bit dated. For one thing, the listings of RFCs in
2.2 only go up to around RFC3000; consequently, it lists some obsolete
specifications (like RFC2543 instead of RFC3261) and probably omits some
newer specifications that should fall under its yoke.

>From a reviewer:

The IANA procedures for SIP header registrations purposefully preclude
registration of experimental headers (this was at the request of iesg). That
seems at odds with the provisional mechanism in this draft. I don't know how
to reconcile these two views.