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

draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-01.txt

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:16:45 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimagU_Gg2DvByOoTc=R9NdJ_xDBtEL=Zn1kXtqT@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hello all,

Here are some notes on discussed issues:

2010/11/22, Bill Atwood <bill@cse.concordia.ca>:
> In the Abstract, the phrase "not proceed" should be "not processed".
>
> In addition, since "not" is a curious object that can often be
> mis-interpreted or can often be interpreted ambiguously, especially in
> cases similar to the ones that you are discussing, I would encourage you
> to substitute "unrecognized" for "not recognized" and "unprocessed" for
> "not processed" throughout your document.
>
>   Bill Atwood

Will be taken into acount while prparing new version
of the I-D.

2010/11/23, Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>:
> 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

If a server sends 4xx code, it stops procesing the request.
Generally unrecognized headers are not critical - all
'vital' headers MUST be supported by servers. If a client receives
such a response, it SHOULD avoid sending requests
with mentioned headers while server MUST cntinue processing
the request.

2010/11/23, mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>:
> 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
>

Warning headers wth 199 or 299 codes are 'understandable'
for people and not for user agents, as it carries arbitrary
information without any specified syntax.

I hope I have answered all your questions.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 09:17:23 GMT

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