- From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:28:18 +0200
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
tis 2010-05-25 klockan 16:15 +1200 skrev Adrien de Croy: > We've made some more great progress with testing on this, which has lead > to a fairly major change in the structure of information passed back by > servers. Looks good to me. Some comments Maybe add an optional Progress request header, allowing client to indicate for example how frequent it desires to get progress updates. But probably overkill as the clients needing this most also is low bandwidth clients and adding a header like this for those is counterproductive.. I also thought about perhaps an explicit note to not respond with 102 if the request was HTTP/1.0. But this should not be needed today. As far as I know all HTTP/1.0 proxies deployed today support the Connection header. "OK" is maybe not the most appropriate status code description, and confusingly similar to 200.. "Progress" or "Info" perhaps? Something which may require some additional thought is how to handle chains of proxies using Progress. For example Client <-> Transforming proxy <-> AV Proxy <-> Server. How should an intermediary forward progress information when it is itself also buffering and processing the response? And another use case to cover for progress notifications is when intermediaries buffer the request before forwarding causing delays in request forwarding which in effect looks the same as delays in request. Regards Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 08:30:37 UTC