Considerations for new header fields

[mnot@…]

We need to document what those who want to define new headers need to take into consideration. E.g.,

• i18n / charset
• reuse of common syntax
• whether it's required to be listed in the connection header (hop-by-hop vs. end-to-end)
  • request or response?
  • payload?
  • allowable in trailers?
  • how intermediaries should/should not handle them
  • special handling of Content-*, in case we keep this (pulled into this bug from [180])
  • target of metadata (see #20, etc.)
  • whether the header should be preserved across redirects

Not sure if this should go in p1 or p2.

[julian.reschke@…]

When using common syntax like "param", how to handle repetitions. (1) Are they allowed? (2) What are the processing requirements?

[mnot@…]

Note somewhere that 'close' is reserved ( see #256 ).

[fielding@…]

From [1158]:

Replaced the general prohibition on unrecognized Content-* header fields with a specific prohibition of Content-Range (the only field for which it is an actual problem) and a general requirement regarding checking for consistency. Unfortunately, this required rewriting the entire section on PUT to get rid of the misconceptions about storing resources and reflect how PUT is actually implemented in practice.

Addresses #79, #102, #103, #104, #112, #180, #231, and #267

[mnot@…]

Unassigning milestone; please don't set a milestone on a design ticket until we have WG consensus, or it's incorporated.

[julian.reschke@…]

proposed change for p2

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1417]:

add considerations for new header fields (see #231)

[mnot@…]

What else needs to be done to close this?

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1444]:

typo (see #231)

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1446]:

note the implications of not using the list syntax (see #231)

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1448]:

add advice on parameter syntax (token/quoted-string) (see #231)

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1451]:

param names are case-insensitive (see #231)

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1458]:

Recommend header field syntax where field-recombination using "," can be detected (see #231)

[julian.reschke@…]

See also [1463].

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1466]:

Mark issue as done (see #231)