- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:34:42 +1000
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> On 22 Apr 2019, at 2:50 am, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote: > > On 4/10/19 6:24 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-proxy-status-00 >> >> This email starts a call for adoption. Please reply to this email with >> your thoughts, and state whether or not you believe the group should >> adopt this document. Feedback is requested by *Wednesday, April 24*. > > I believe the scope of the document should be enlarged from the current > "error details in the proxy-generated response" to something like "proxy > status(es) when handling the message". After that, it should be adopted. Hi Alex, Agreed; Piotr and I have already been discussing that. That said, we should be careful to understand the delineation between this and the Cache header. Cheers, > IMHO, there is no good reason to restrict a generic "Proxy-Status" > mechanism to proxy-generated errors, especially since existing proxies > already use similar mechanisms to relay their state when forwarding > messages (in addition to generating error responses). Typical uses > include relaying caching state (initial lookup outcome, refresh > activity, etc.) and proxy-specific transaction IDs (for correlating > messages with proxy logs). > > > Thank you, > > Alex. > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:35:12 UTC