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

Re: Prefer Draft Feedback

From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:32:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbf5uJGgesZ2L4PTa=BSXo_9TN8MT7_7XiGm0+oyjOADsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ok... updated the draft based on much of the feedback provided. There
will be another round of changes coming. Hopefully I've adequately
addressed most of the concerns raised so far.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-05

- James

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh.. the conditional request is definitely an interesting case. I'd
> definitely be open to adding some additional discussion.
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6 December 2011 07:29, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 2011-12-05 21:20, James Snell wrote:
>>>> Ok... well like I said, I don't have a problem pulling this if it does
>>>> overlap. For now, however, until it's clear that something else
>>>> adequately covers this requirement, I'll keep it in.
>>>
>>> Martin?
>>
>> The 'wait' tag seems perfectly appropriate to me for monitoring
>> changes in resource state (aka long -polling).  As specified in -04,
>> it works, though it's not necessarily clear from the text.
>>
>> My current thoughts are that you can have a resource with a particular
>> state, indicated by an ETag.  By using If-None-Match (or one of the
>> other conditional headers) and Prefer: wait=x, then you can request
>> that the server only provide an update when the resource changes,
>> within that interval.  It's a new use of the conditional headers, as
>> well as a slightly different spin on the wait header, but I think that
>> it's workable.
>>
>> Of course, you could use the 'wait' tag without anything fancy if the
>> resource simply had specific logic for long-polling.  It seems less
>> nice that way.
>>
>> I might be able to draft a paragraph or two to add if folks are
>> amenable to this.
>>
>> --Martin
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 00:33:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:50 GMT