Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft

Julian, all,

I have read all these notes. Here are the answers:

22.11.2010 12:55, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 22.11.2010 08:33, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have recently made an I-D, which, I think,
>> would be interesting for the WG. You can
>> find it here:
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized/ 
>>
>>
>> Could you please review it?
>> ...
>
> Hi Mykyta,
>
> a few thoughts:
>
> - This would be interesting for debugging purposes. Not sure about 
> things beyond that. For instance, what's the rational for the 
> conformance requirements you make? IMHO, a server MUST continue to 
> process the requests (because that's how 1xx status codes work), but 
> the actual 103 message should only be a hint to the sender.
Yes, I have mentioned that the server MUST continue processing of the 
request.

    If a server sends a response with aforementioned status,
    it SHOULD continue  processing of client's request.

> - The ABNF for the header should be a list of comma-separated headers 
> (same syntax as for Vary, for instance)
>
> - You'd need IANA considerations for the new header as well.
The information about not-processed headers will be put into the body
of the response.
>
> - In many cases, this will be extremely hard to implement, because the 
> actual handling of a request requires several layers, and it would 
> tricky to find out which headers were processed by whom. Also, in many 
> cases, the final recipient might not be *able* to send a 1xx response 
> (such as a Java servlet).
Look here:

    If a server receives request with unknown (for it) headers, it*SHOULD*
    send a response with 'Some Headers Not Recognized' status.

If a server is not able to send the 103 code, it won't do, as
we don't set '*MUST*' comformancecriterion here.

>
> Best regards, Julian
>
I hope I've answered all the questions.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev