RE: Submission of HTTP Extension Framework (Mandatory)

From: Yaron Goland (yarong@microsoft.com)
Date: Wed, Aug 12 1998


Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D08792349@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <frystyk@w3.org>, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:41:46 -0700
Subject: RE: Submission of HTTP Extension Framework (Mandatory)

It is often the case that one needs to dumb down a 1.1 method to get through
a 1.0 proxy. However, if a mandatory request doesn't include any c-* headers
and is otherwise properly formatted why should the server be forced to
reject it on the sole basis that it was received from a 1.0 client as
required by rule 2 in section 5?

Many server side extension APIs do not provide support for sending 1xx
responses. As such it would make implementing Mandatory harder by requiring
a 102 response as specified by rule 5 in section 5. Why not just add a
header to the 200 response such as "man-confirm:" which means "I did
understand your mandatory header(s)"?

If one receives a response to a DELETE with a mandatory header on it,
treating the body as if it were application/octet-stream does not provide
any help in determining what has actually happened as a result of the DELETE
method. I believe section 6 needs to use more restrictive language of the
form "The server MUST NOT send back mandatory headers on the response unless
some form of negotiation has already occured which specifically allows it."

If Keith stays true to form he is going to give you grief over making the
URIs resolvable. He is going to ask you very pointed questions about how you
deal with load when you have a whole bunch of people trying to resolve this
URI. I think we are actually o.k. because resolution is not required for
operation, rather it is a way for someone to figure out what some random
mandatory extension they have never seen before is. Thus, since the URI is
not really usable by an automated process, the over all load should be
manageable.

Also, as much as I like to get referenced you never actually use [10]
anywhere in the spec so it should be removed.

		Yaron



-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:frystyk@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 10:56 AM
To: ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Subject: Submission of HTTP Extension Framework (Mandatory)



I have written up the closures of all the outstanding issues listed at

	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/ietf-http-ext/Issues/

and included them in an updated HTTP Extension Framework draft which is
available from

	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/ietf-http-ext/

in various formats (I am submitting it now).

I am not aware that this group is meeting at the Chicago IETF nor what the
exact status is of the Working Group itself. Is this a Working Group or not?

However, after having closed all remaining issues, I believe we are
actually done with this draft unless issues not already described in the
issues list come up. Therefore, I urge you to look it over carefully and
send any comments to this list.

Thanks!

Henrik




--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk