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: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:58:10 +1000
Cc: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D138245A-856E-4E5C-96F5-34CC76A571D8@mnot.net>
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>

On 09/07/2010, at 8:34 PM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
> if I understood correctly Mark, you are to suggesting that just having an header would be enough and much easier to implement for the intermediaries, isn't it?
> if so I don't see much difference in defining an header containing a value and let the intermediate decide if consider or not the value and then use it as a single bit!

True, except that -- as I said before -- I think many implementers are going to misinterpret this header; because they're not used to using proxies and distributed systems, its semantics are quite subtle, and possibly dangerous (i.e., it will leave them in a place worse off than before). 


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 23:58:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:54 UTC