Re: ICAP header extensions

[Alex Rousskov <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Martin Stecher wrote:

> the ICAP protocol defines in section 4.3: "User-defined header
> extensions are allowed. [... They] MUST follow the "X-" naming
> convention [...]"
>
> There are already a bunch of user-defined headers in use,
> unfortunately only two of them have been published officialy
> (X-Client-IP and X-Subscriber-ID in
> draft-beck-opes-icap-subid-00.txt), many more have been exchanged
> between organisations.
>
> With the growing number of ICAP client and server implementations we
> see more and more user-defined headers being introduced.
> Unfortunately there are already some with the identical meaning but
> different names.
>
> To ensure further interoperability even beyond the standard feature
> set, I propose that we publish the X-headers that are in use.

Would it be a good idea to follow [1] and [2] with this?
Looks like those IDs attempt to solve the same problem.
 [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-06.txt
 [2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http-00.txt

Alex.

-- 
                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance