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

Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:49:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4CEAC95B.7050208@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hello all,

A new version (-01) of discussed I-D is available
now. Here is a link to it.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized/

All notes, listed below, were taken into
considerations.

Waiting for proposals for future improvements.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev


22.11.2010 19:33, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Julian,
>
> Everything you proposed would be taken into
> consideration.
>
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> 22.11.2010 17:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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 19:50:19 GMT

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