- From: Owen Rees <rtor@ansa.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 17:57:15 +0000
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Comments on draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-00. The comments on Accept, Message-ID and Version are more important than the others. 3.2 Universal Resource Identifiers Should refer to RFC1738 as the standard for URLs including the http scheme, escaping rules and allowed characters. 3.3.1 Full Date RFC 1123 (5.2.14) says: "There is a strong trend towards the use of numeric timezone indicators, and implementations SHOULD use numeric timezones instead of timezone names. However, all implementations MUST accept either notation." "+0000" should at least be permitted as an alternative to "GMT" in the "updated by RFC 1123" case. 4.3.2 Forwarded The final sentence about hiding internal hosts should say that existing Forwarded headers (added by proxies inside the firewall) should be removed. 4.3.3 Message-ID The first paragraph specifies that this is a unique identifier for the message, presumably the HTTP request or response message. The final paragraph says that an HTTP response should only include a Message-ID header if the entity has one. Since it is possible to retrieve a Mail/News message more than once, the HTTP Message-ID cannot be the Message-ID of the enclosed entity as this would violate the unique identification property for the HTTP response message. My preferred solution is to remove Message-ID from HTTP altogether, but if it is retained it cannot be both a unique identifier for an HTTP message and imported from Mail/News/etc. by a gateway. 4.3.4 MIME-Version I would have classified this as an entity-header rather than a general-header. 5.4.1 Accept See my recent note about "*/*" meaning "not unusual" where the server cannot know how to interpret "unusual" because it is customisable by the user agent. Encouraging user-agent authors to give users control over media types is good; undermining the means by which this information is passed to the server is bad. 7.1.1 Allow I would have classified this as a response-header rather than an entity-header; it is required with 405 Method Not Allowed and will not be meta-information about the entity containing an explanation of the error. 7.1.14 Version "A user agent can request a particular version of an entity by including its tag in a Version header as part of the request." How should Version be interpreted in a POST request? It could refer either to the version of the entity, or to the version of the resource to which the entity is to be made subordinate. What is the existing practice in this case? Regards, Owen Rees <rtor@ansa.co.uk> Information about ANSA is at <URL:http://www.ansa.co.uk/>.
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 1995 10:41:34 UTC