Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP-Date

• From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:28:58 +0200
• To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
• Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
• Message-ID: <CAP9qbHVHJh6XVwqHpK6wmmh_SRdSx5mO8j+CGrPbrxDzW5-2PQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amos,

and thanks for your reply!

Il giorno lun 5 ago 2019 alle ore 14:06 Amos Jeffries
<squid3@treenet.co.nz> ha scritto:
> > if we had to reboot the retry-after header, would we use the HTTP-date
> >  or the unix-timestamp syntax?
> Why re-design it at all?
To clarify, I don't want to redesign Retry-After :)
Instead I'm working on a new I-D to standardize `RateLimit-*` headers:

- https://ioggstream.github.io/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers.html

and I'm investigating the relations with `Retry-After`:

- https://github.com/ioggstream/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers/issues/15#issuecomment-518199305

> If anything reduce it to just the delay-seconds field value. That is
> compatible with any time locale.

Agree. You can see:

- https://ioggstream.github.io/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers.html#rfc.section.3.3

If you are interested in the I-D, your suggestions and contributions
will be precious and welcome.

Have a nice day,
R

Received on Monday, 5 August 2019 12:29:34 UTC