Subject: [Ietf-message-headers] HTTP Refresh header

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:00:08 +0200

Header field name: Refresh

Applicable protocol: http

Status: standard

Author/Change controller: WHATWG

Specification document(s): https://html.spec.whatwg.org/

Related information: See
https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/7e9f6b6ffe2119f43f909f71773a25a7e8a61ca7
if you're interested in the exact changes to the HTML Standard.

-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:58:47 +0200

> if you're interested in the exact changes to the HTML Standard.

It's great that you're doing this, but I think the changes in the spec 
aren't sufficient at all in order to define the header field.

See 
<https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#considerations.for.new.header.fields>.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:02:10 -0700

It'd be nice if the header was well-defined, but those aren't requirements for registration; if it's in use (and it is), it should be registered.

> On 9 Aug 2017, at 10:58 am, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> It's great that you're doing this, but I think the changes in the spec aren't sufficient at all in order to define the header field.
> 
> See <https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#considerations.for.new.header.fields>.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-message-headers mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 20:28:56 +0200

On 2017-08-09 20:02, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...

That is true, but the registration actually should reference something 
that specifies the HTTP header field.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:02:47 +0200

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> That is true, but the registration actually should reference something that
> specifies the HTTP header field.

Could you be more specific?

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:28:54 +0200

> Could you be more specific?

a) Add a subsection that defines the actual header field, and reference 
it in the template.

b) Add an ABNF.

c) Have a look at the list of considerations - most should be simple to 
answer.

I'll give it a try if you want me to.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:43:13 +0200

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> a) Add a subsection that defines the actual header field, and reference it
> in the template.
>
> b) Add an ABNF.
>

Sounds great. I'm not sure an ABNF is a good idea here, but the other
things are probably worthwhile.

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:41:04 +0100

> Could you be more specific?

FYI, the requirement for permanent registration per 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#section-2.1 includes "Specification 
required", which is defined as:

[[
Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be
            documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily available
            reference, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
            between independent implementations is possible.
]]
-- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434#section-2

#g
--

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:43:24 +0200

> -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434#section-2

Well, that part is definitely covered. So if that's all there's no real problem.