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

Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:24:09 +0100
Message-ID: <4CEA8B19.4060209@gmx.de>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 22.11.2010 15:15, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Julian, all,
>
> I have read all these notes. Here are the answers:
>
> 22.11.2010 12:55, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, I have mentioned that the server MUST continue processing of the
> request.
>
>     If a server sends a response with aforementioned status,
>      it SHOULD continue  processing of client's request.

MUST != SHOULD.

>> - 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.
> The information about not-processed headers will be put into the body
> of the response.

A 103 response doesn't have a body.

>> - 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).
> Look here:
>
>     If a server receives request with unknown (for it) headers, it*SHOULD*
>     send a response with 'Some Headers Not Recognized' status.
>
> If a server is not able to send the 103 code, it won't do, as
> we don't set '*MUST*' comformancecriterion here.

Understood. I was just trying to explain that for many servers, it will 
be hard to implement this.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 15:24:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT