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

Re: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:00:49 -0700
Message-ID: <4EDF8DB1.8080608@stpeter.im>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, 'Sam Johnston' <samj@samj.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
On 12/6/11 10:08 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 12/06/2011 07:29 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>
>>> A third way would be to return a 200 OK response with an extension
>>> response header or custom body that indicates which parts of the request
>>> were not "fully fulfilled".
>>>
>>> A forth way would be to include extension request headers or custom body
>>> pieces indicating client preferences with regard to considering
>>> partially fulfilled requests successful.
>>
>> What do you mean by extension response/request headers? Are you talking
>> about RFC 2774 [1] or just some proprietary (X-)headers?
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2774.txt
> 
> Any message extension headers as defined by RFC 2616 Section 7.1.
> Whether they are [going to be] documented by some RFC, have an X-
> prefix, and/or remain application-specific is not important for this
> discussion, IMHO.

I agree that it's not important in this context.

FYI, please note that we're trying to get rid of the x- prefix...

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash

Speaking of which, I need to ping the APPSAWG chairs about starting a
last call. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 16:01:30 GMT

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