W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Early Hints (103)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:08:43 +0100
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <dfcc8c24-494e-204d-1e07-194bdc8e5b3b@gmx.de>
On 2016-11-22 23:26, Patrick McManus wrote:
> Dear Gentlefolk of HTTPbis,
> This is a followup to Kazuho's presentation in Seoul[*] where he
> discussed
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code/
> The idea seemed to have acceptance (both in the room and on the list)
> with some concerns expressed about interoperability. Kazuho was kind
> enough to publish an endpoint so you can test if the client you
> implement has an unexpected failure in the face of 103.

...and the endpoint is <https://nghttp2.org/?103-eh>.

> However, the draft was published pretty close to meeting time and there
> wasn't much space for discussion in the room. So before we do a Call For
> Adoption, I would like to hear some more discussion so the chairs can be
> confident there is interest - even if that discussion is "I would like
> to implement that" or "what does that accomplish?". Please do chime in,
> your silence will be taken for disinterest otherwise :).

I would like to work on improving implementations so that they can 
actually use it.

I think it's great to work on 103, and while doing that also improve the 
situation for 1xx in general. I already saw somebody else saying that 
they're looking into using RFC 2518's 102 Processing status as well 
(different use case, but same protocol level).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 09:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 23 November 2016 09:09:22 UTC