W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: http progress notification

From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:28:18 +0200
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1274776098.2509.40.camel@localhost>
tis 2010-05-25 klockan 16:15 +1200 skrev Adrien de Croy:
> We've made some more great progress with testing on this, which has lead 
> to a fairly major change in the structure of information passed back by 
> servers.

Looks good to me. Some comments


Maybe add an optional Progress request header, allowing client to
indicate for example how frequent it desires to get progress updates.
But probably overkill as the clients needing this most also is low
bandwidth clients and adding a header like this for those is
counterproductive..

I also thought about perhaps an explicit note to not respond with 102 if
the request was HTTP/1.0. But this should not be needed today. As far as
I know all HTTP/1.0 proxies deployed today support the Connection
header.

"OK" is maybe not the most appropriate status code description, and
confusingly similar to 200.. "Progress" or "Info" perhaps?

Something which may require some additional thought is how to handle
chains of proxies using Progress. For example Client <-> Transforming
proxy <-> AV Proxy <-> Server. How should an intermediary forward
progress information when it is itself also buffering and processing the
response?

And another use case to cover for progress notifications is when
intermediaries buffer the request before forwarding causing delays in
request forwarding which in effect looks the same as delays in request.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 08:30:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:19 GMT