HTTP Header Field Registrations
draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http-05

[Ballot comment]
It seems to me that none of the keywords from RFC2119 are used
and so section 1.1 plus the normative reference [2] are (I think)
irrelevant to this document.

IANA Comments:
The IANA Considerations section indicates that the IANA has new registrations to make, however it does not say which sections those new registrations can be found.  Can this detail be added?

[Ballot comment]
A minor comment: I was confused by

Related information: spoof

in 2.1.3; after reading the reference I realized that it was because it was defined in an April 1 RFC; when I first read it I thought maybe it was warning that this header was vulnerable to spoofing, or some such thing.

Last call comments from Larry Masinter:

While information is always transient and may need update in the future,
I think it's counter-productive to publish, in 2005, an RFC with
information that is known to be incorrect. In particular, many
of the email addresses listed are incorrect; in some cases, for example,
my email address is listed as "masinter@parc.xerox.com" for some header
fields,
even though I haven't used that address for over 5 years. Further,
I have no interest in being listed as "change controller"  for
a header in an Internet Draft that never became an RFC
(draft-mutz-http-attributes)
nor do I think it's appropriate to list the joke headers in the
April 1st RFC 2324.

I think in general you should get someone's permission before
listing them as the registrant of an entry in the registry, and
that the email addresses and affiliations should be correct.

I wonder if it is necessary to publish an RFC to initiate the
RFC 3864 registry, and suggest using the second method in section
4.3 of RFC 3864 instead: " Send a copy of the template to the designated
email discussion list [33] [34]...."

In the case of a large number of registrations, the "reasonable
period" might extend further than two weeks.

AD review comments:

The text between the [[[ and ]]] brackets should be removed from section 1.1.  This can be dealt with when addressing any last call comments.

At the last ping of Mark, he indicated that this was likely to get a large-scale
technical re-write, so I'm bumping this back down to "AD is watching"