W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: Last Call: <draft-snell-http-prefer-14.txt> (Prefer Header for HTTP) to Proposed Standard

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:12:58 +0200
Message-ID: <506EF8FA.1030100@gmx.de>
To: ietf@ietf.org
CC: SM <sm@resistor.net>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi James,

see below for my (mostly editorial) feedback:

Multiple times: s/header/header field/

1.  Introduction

    Within the course of processing an HTTP request there are typically a
    range of required and optional behaviors that a server or
    intermediary can employ.  These often manifest is a variety of subtle
    and not-so-subtle ways within the response.

s/is/in/

    For example, when using the HTTP PUT method to modify a resource --
    similar to that defined for the Atom Publishing Protocol [RFC 5023]

reference to RFC 5023 is missing

    The rigid, must-understand semantics of the Expect header, therefore,

    make it a poor choice for the general expression of optional
    preferences that may be specific to an individual application and are
    therefore unknown to an intermediary or are otherwise irrelevant to
    the intermediaries successful handling of the request and response.

    Another option available to clients is to utilize Request URI query-
    string parameters to express preferences.  Doing so, however, results
    in a variety of issues affecting the cacheability of responses.

Comment: not according to the spec; but there are other issues with it, 
such as overloading the URI namespace.

    As an alternative, this specification defines a new HTTP request
    header field that can be used by clients to request that optional
    behaviors be applied by a server during the processing the request.
    Additionally, a handful of initial preference tokens for use with the
    new header are defined.

    In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
    "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
    and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

ID-Nits complained it couldn't find this note. It probably needs some 
adjustment.

1.1.  Syntax Notation

    This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
    notation of [RFC5234] and includes, by reference, the "token",
    "word", "OWS", "BWS" rules and the #rule extension as defined within
    Sections 1.2 and 3.2.4 of [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging].

Note: need to re-check the section numbers, they might have moved.

2.  The Prefer Request Header Field

    The Prefer request-header field is used to indicate that particular
    server behaviors are preferred by the client, but not required for
    successful completion of the request.  Prefer is similar in nature to
    the Expect header field defined by Section 9.3 of
    [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] with the exception that servers are

Ditto.

    If a particular preference token or parameter is specified multiple
    times, repeated occurrences MUST be ignored without signaling an
    error or otherwise altering the processing of the request.

That means: first wins, right? The repeated occurrences might have 
different parameters...

    The Prefer request header field is end-to-end and MUST be forwarded
    by a proxy if the request is forwarded.

That's something *this* spec can not require; it should follow from 
HTTPbis, right?

s/header/header field/

    No significance is given to the order in which preference tokens
    appear within a request.

Really? What if a token is repeated with different parameters?

2.1.  Content Negotiation and Cache Considerations

    Note that while the Prefer header field is not intended to be used as
    content negotiation mechanism, the application of a preference
    potentially could affect the caching characteristics of a response.
    Specifically, if a server supports the optional application of a
    preference that could even just potentially result in a variance to a
    cache's handling of a response entity, a Vary header field MUST be
    included with the response listing the Prefer header field regardless
    of whether the client actually used Prefer in the request.

    Because of the inherent complexities involved with properly
    implementing server-driven content negotiation, effective caching,
    and the application of optional preferences, implementors must

...avoid lowercase RFC2119 keywords...

    exercise caution when utilizing preferences in such a way as to
    impact the caching of a response and SHOULD NOT use the Prefer header
    mechanism for content negotiation.

2.2.  Examples

    The following examples illustrate the use of various preferences
    defined by this specification, as well as undefined extensions for
    strictly illustrative purposes:

    1.  Return a "202 Accepted" response for asynchronous processing if
    the response cannot be processed within 10 seconds.  An undefined
    "priority" preference is also specified:

      Prefer: return-asynch, wait=10;
      Prefer: priority=5;

Shouldn't that be:

      Prefer: return-asynch; wait=10
      Prefer: priority=5

???

3.  Preference Definitions

    The following subsections define an initial set of preferences.
    Additional preferences can be registered for convenience and/or to
    promote reuse by other applications.  This specification establishes
    an IANA registry of such relation types (see Section 4.1).

    Registered preference names MUST conform to the token rule, and MUST
    be compared character-by-character in a case-insensitive fashion.
    They SHOULD be appropriate to the specificity of the preference;
    i.e., if the semantics are highly specific to a particular
    application, the name should reflect that, so that more general names
    remain available for less specific use.

    Registered preferences MUST NOT constrain servers, clients or any
    intermediaries involved in the exchange and processing of a request
    to any behavior required for successful processing.  The use and
    application of a preference within a given request MUST be optional
    on the part of all participants.

3.1.  The "return-asynch" Preference

    The "return-asynch" preference indicates that the client prefers the
    server to respond asynchronously to a response.  For instance, in the
    case when the length of time it takes to generate a response will
    exceed some arbitrary threshold established by the server, the server
    can honor the return-asynch preference by returning either a "202
    Accepted" or "303 See Other" response.

...would be good to explain when to use what (not sure about when 303 
would be right).

3.4.  The "wait" Preference

    The "wait" preference can be used to establish an upper bound on the
    length of time, in seconds, the client is willing to wait for a
    response, after which the client might choose to abandon the request.
    In the case generating a response will take longer than the time
    specified, the server, or proxy, MAY choose to utilize an
    asynchronous processing model by returning, for example, "202
    Accepted" or "303 See Other" responses.

    ABNF:

      wait = "wait" BWS "=" BWS delta-seconds

    Clients specifying the "wait" preference SHOULD also use the Date
    header field, as specified in Section 9.2 of
    [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], within the request to establish the
    time at which the client began waiting for the completion of the
    request.  Failing to include a Date header field in the request would
    require the server to use the instant it received or began processing
    the request as the baseline for determining how long the client has
    been waiting which could yield unintended results.

I'm not totally convinced that taking the Date request header field into 
account is necessary given the additional complexity; what do others 
think?

3.5.  The "strict" and "lenient" Processing Preferences

Editorial: why are "strict" and "lenient" described in a single section, 
while "return-representation" and "return-minimal" are not?

    An example request specifying the "strict" preference:

      POST /collection HTTP/1.1
      Host: example.org
      Content-Type: text/plain
      Prefer: strict

    An example request specifying the "lenient" preference:

      POST /collection HTTP/1.1
      Host: example.org
      Content-Type: text/plain
      Prefer: lenient

I like examples, but too much is too much :-)


4.  IANA Considerations

    The 'Prefer' header field should be added to the Permanent Message
    Header Fields registry defined in [RFC3864]
    (http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html).

       Header field name: Prefer
       Applicable Protocol: HTTP
       Status:

"standard", right?


5.  Security Considerations

    Specific preferences requested by a client can introduce security
    considerations and concerns beyond those discussed in HTTP/1.1 Parts
    1 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging], 2 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics],
    3 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p3-payload], 4 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional],

There is no spoon^h^h^h^h^hPart 3.

    5 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p5-range], 6 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p6-cache], and 7
    [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p7-auth].  Implementors must refer to the
    specifications and descriptions of each preference to determine the
    security considerations relevant to each.



Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 15:13:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 October 2012 15:13:35 GMT