W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Filling out 202 Accepted

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:13:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4E560415.2040100@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-08-11 06:40, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The 202 Accepted status code has come up from time to time, with people liking the idea behind it, but needing a bit more.
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-15#section-8.2.3>
> I'm wondering if we can clarify things a little bit by adding two bits of text:
> --8<---
> A 202 response MAY carry a Retry-After header field that indicates an estimation of when the processing might be complete.
> It MAY also carry a Location header that indicates the URI of a resource that will be created once processing has completed.
> --->8---
> Thoughts?

Nit: do not use MAY here, just state that the header fields are applicable.

Other than that - the current description says:

"The 202 response is intentionally non-committal. Its purpose is to 
allow a server to accept a request for some other process (perhaps a 
batch-oriented process that is only run once per day) without requiring 
that the user agent's connection to the server persist until the process 
is completed. The representation returned with this response SHOULD 
include an indication of the request's current status and either a 
pointer to a status monitor or some estimate of when the user can expect 
the request to be fulfilled."

...so a "status monitor" resource would also be a candidate for the 
Location header field.

Maybe this is premature? Does anybody use this right now?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 08:13:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:58 UTC