W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p6: Warning header field

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 16:34:13 +0900
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D4FDF14B-6102-402A-AD54-237640E8B1AE@mnot.net>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
I'll take that as an editorial TODO. 

On 09/06/2013, at 4:22 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> I just noticed that the definition of the Warning header field
> includes a required host or pseudonym between the warn-code and
> the warn-text, and further that the warn-text is a quoted-string.
> 
> Since there are no examples provided, and the table of warn-codes
> makes them look like status-code reason-phrase, it should be no
> surprise that implementations send things like
> 
>  Warning: 110 Response is stale
>  Warning: 110 squid/3.2.0.5 "Response is stale"
>  Warning: 111 squid/3.2.0.5 "Revalidation failed"
>  Warning: 111 Revalidation failed
>  Warning: 112 Disconnected Operation
>  Warning: 214 host.example.com Transformation applied
> 
> In fact, the only places I can find correctly formatted Warning
> header fields is in an internal Apache debugging module (mod_policy,
> abusing that field for other means) and within a BEA example for SIP.
> 
>  Warning: 307 isi.edu "Session parameter 'foo' not understood"
> 
> I haven't found any that send the optional warn-date.
> 
> Obviously, examples are needed in p6, unless I can delete the
> header field and be done with it.
> 
> ....Roy
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 07:34:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC