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

Re: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:43:12 +1000
Cc: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4D4A0DFB-BBEC-4BBD-9CCC-6933B64BE0FC@mnot.net>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>

On 09/07/2010, at 3:50 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:

> Right - for the cases you have in mind, the single bit might be wasted bytes too.

Not really. Patching Squid (etc.) to change policy based upon the presence of a header isn't a big deal, and when it's deployed as an accelerator, the single bit could be quite valuable.

> However, in the context of XmlHTTPRequest, might we not consider the browser to be an intermediary?  Would the same constraints apply there?

Are you suggesting that the browser rewrite headers before handing them to the HTTP API? That's likely to cause a fair amount of confusion... Why not just expose the connection timeout of the browser as an API extension?



--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 07:43:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:23 GMT