- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 09:33:05 -0800
- To: "Bryce Nesbitt" <bnesbitt@bepress.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <ca722a9e0901050933r1c66cdd3gfd4d7f5614a79682@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Bryce, This is the correct list to discuss such a specification change. You might write up the proposal in the form of specific text changes that can be made to the current in-progress HTTP specs. Lisa On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <bnesbitt@bepress.com> wrote: > Dear http-wg members. > > Where would I go to propose a specification change to HTTP such as the one > below (allowing optional Retry-After headers in a 20X response)? This is a > backwards compatible change, and need not have any browser support to be > valuable to cooperating automated harvesting robots (e.g. > http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html ). > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <bnesbitt@bepress.com>wrote: > >> Dear Working Group Folks, >> >> I am not a member of the working group. But I have recently been tempted >> to "stretch" the HTTP spec, and I'm writing to inquire if what I'm doing is >> reasonable enough to eventually fold into the spec. >> >> Basically I'm sending a Retry-After header on a 20x HTTP response. >> >> I'm working with a "throttled" data service which rate limits >> connections. Clients are harvesting a huge volumes of data over time. >> Presently clients get some data with a 200 result, ask again right away and >> get a 503 response, then wait out the proper Retry-After time. >> >> If I can return Retry-After with the 20x result, it will cut the total >> requests in half. Clients can ask for data, and know immediately how long >> to wait before they ask again. Only a client that violates the timeout >> would ever see a 503. >> >> The HTTP/1.1 spec is pretty clear (in section 14.37) that Retry-After is >> for 503 and 3xx return codes only. Your thoughts? Where would I go to >> suggest an expansion of the Retry-After header, to be inclusive of 20x >> results? Is this a reasonable extension in your view? >> > >
Received on Monday, 5 January 2009 17:33:51 UTC