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

Re: Headers-Not-Recognized for HTTP

From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:08:33 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimYZcXMXxcFfDU=zp2q+Zfmq1AA8C6jmY8k0w7Y@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Mykyta:

I think the functionality described in this I-D is covered by the
Warning header [1] w/ the code of 199 or 299 (along with your text).

[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.46

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me


#RESTFest 2010
http://rest-fest.googlecode.com




On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:27, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>
> another option is to go back to the original issue.
>
> If you have a client-server application layered over HTTP that needs to know
> that certain information provided by the client is acted upon by the server,
> why not use something like SOAP,  where this information is transported in
> the content, rather than the headers.
>
> this then doesn't provide incentive for people to proliferate new HTTP
> headers which would probably be either stripped or ignored by the vast
> majority of deployed infrastructure.
>
> Regards
>
> Adrien
>
>
> On 23/11/2010 11:12 a.m., Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> It looks a bit like a ping/pong game, with your proposal, instead of having
> a server ignoring headers, we'll have clients mostly not knowing what to do
> with that new response. Besides, RFC2616 says explicitely that unknown
> headers should be ignored by servers.
> If your application is strict and conservative about what it accepts, you
> could still use one of the 4xx error codes. They are plenty of them.
> --
> - Sylvain
> http://www.defuze.org
> http://twitter.com/lawouach
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 00:09:10 GMT

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