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

Headers-Not-Recognized for HTTP (was: Please review my Internet-Draft)

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:24:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4CEAD16C.2000401@gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hello all,

The idea proposed by Robert seems very interesting to me.
I have remade my I-D according to the proposals.
You are able to find it here:

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

I think everything is clear in this document and
it needs only editorial changes. IMO if nothing
critical won't be proposed, I'll initiate the process
of RFC publication.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

22.11.2010 22:01, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> Dear Mykyta,
>
> I don't understand the motivation for introducing a new status as well 
> as the proposed response header.
>
> As you note in your Motivation section:
>   Generally, if a server does not recognize the header, it simply 
> ignores it.
>
> In my opinion this is the web working as intended, and to change it 
> would break a huge amount of infrastructure.
>
> On the other hand, the response header is informative and may assist a 
> client in future requests, or in understanding why the response was 
> not the one expected.  My suggestion would be to remove the status 
> code, and just register the response header.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Rob Sanderson
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev 
> <evnikita2@gmail.com <mailto:evnikita2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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 20:24:49 GMT

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