- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:55:50 +0100
- To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 22.11.2010 08:33, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > Hello all, > > I have recently made an I-D, which, I think, > would be interesting for the WG. You can > find it here: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized/ > > Could you please review it? > ... Hi Mykyta, a few thoughts: - This would be interesting for debugging purposes. Not sure about things beyond that. For instance, what's the rational for the conformance requirements you make? IMHO, a server MUST continue to process the requests (because that's how 1xx status codes work), but the actual 103 message should only be a hint to the sender. - The ABNF for the header should be a list of comma-separated headers (same syntax as for Vary, for instance) - You'd need IANA considerations for the new header as well. - In many cases, this will be extremely hard to implement, because the actual handling of a request requires several layers, and it would tricky to find out which headers were processed by whom. Also, in many cases, the final recipient might not be *able* to send a 1xx response (such as a Java servlet). Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 10:56:36 UTC