Re: Prefer Draft Feedback

Mark,

Check the thread for discussion on the change to the user agent to client.

As for Preference-Applied... It's back currently but everything is open to
discussion. It doesn't have to go on forever tho :) ... I'm sure you're
aware of the rationale... What are your thoughts on it?
On Dec 6, 2011 10:36 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 07/12/2011, at 11:57 AM, James Snell wrote:
>
> > Current iterations based on today's feedback...
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-06.txt
> >
> > Change summary:
> >
> > - replaced user-agent with client
>
> What's the reasoning here? Do you expect intermediaries to have
> preferences?
>
> > - brought Preference-Applied back
>
> This needs to be discussed. I'm very uneasy about turning this into Yet
> Another HTTP Negotiation Mechanism.
>
> > - Fixed grammar for Prefer and Preference-Applied
> > - ABNF references
> > - Added examples
> >
> > - James
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 7 December 2011 03:29, Alex Rousskov
> >> <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> >>>> 7. The "wait" Preference
> >>> Do you have to limit this feature to user-agents?
> >>
> >> Good point.  In our work on timeouts we observed that intermediaries
> >> are equally capable of placing their own constraints on time.  In
> >> fact, there's nothing inherently wrong with an intermediary changing
> >> the value to a lower value (my client was prepared to wait 30s, but I
> >> have policy that limits this to 10), though increasing the value might
> >> not work out so well.
> >>
> >> --Martin
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>