W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: RETRY-AFTER HTTP working group issue...

From: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:10:54 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970724091054.007cda00@pop3.jungle.bt.co.uk>
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Jim,

I would propose the insertion of one sentence after the first sentence in
14.38.
BTW, this does highlight the fact that it hasn't been clarified whether
Retry-After with a 503 is a MUST, SHOULD or MAY. Given it currently says
"can", I'd say MAY, which I've also reflected in the wording below:


14.38 Retry-After

   The Retry-After response-header field MAY be used with a 503 (Service
   Unavailable) response to indicate how long the service is expected to
   be unavailable to the requesting client. This field MAY also be used
   with any 3xx (Redirection) response to indicate the minimum time the
   user-agent should wait before issuing the redirected request. The
   value...

Bob

At 01:47 PM 16/07/97 -0700, Jim Gettys wrote:
>Could you please draft exact wording changes to the HTTP/1.1 document 
>to resolve this issue as soon as possible, or at least could you
>let me know that you can't spend the time?  We're working had on
>the HTTP/1.1 specification for Munich.
>
>It needs to say exactly for which status codes this should apply.
>				Thanks,
>					Jim Gettys
>
________________________________________________________
Notice: This contribution is the personal view of the 
author and does not necessarily reflect the technical nor 
commercial direction of British Telecommunications plc.
________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 24 July 1997 01:23:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:49 EDT