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, 12 Dec 2011 13:52:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbd5wykNFW3AsRpmoP2hw72T=xTK7TSZ6SjZSqzCe3cJrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Moore, Jonathan (CIM)" <Jonathan_Moore@comcast.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-12-08 18:56, James Snell wrote:
>>
>> Ok, a new draft has been published.
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-07.txt
>>
>> After discussing caching issues with Mark in detail, I've made a
>> number of important changes to the draft... specifically, it is
>> important to point out that Prefer was always intended to be a
>> behavior-negotiation mechanism, not content-negotiation. While the
>> application of a behavioral preference could potentially impact the
>> construction of a response, implementations should avoid utilizing
>> preferences in a way that causes a variance in the caching of a
>> response. For that reason, I added a new short section detailing cache
>> considerations and removed the detail preference. Basically, if you're
>> using Prefer for content-negotiation, you're likely doing it wrong.
>
>
> Not convinced. Where's the difference? If the response without "Prefer"
> would have been cacheable, and the presence of the Prefer header field
> changes the response I receive, how is that *not* content negotiation?
>
>

I tend to view it more as behavior negotiation but it is definitely a
grey area. Going to be thinking this through a bit more.
Received on Monday, 12 December 2011 21:52:38 GMT

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