- From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:08:33 -0500
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Mykyta: I think the functionality described in this I-D is covered by the Warning header [1] w/ the code of 199 or 299 (along with your text). [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.46 mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me #RESTFest 2010 http://rest-fest.googlecode.com On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:27, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: > > another option is to go back to the original issue. > > If you have a client-server application layered over HTTP that needs to know > that certain information provided by the client is acted upon by the server, > why not use something like SOAP, where this information is transported in > the content, rather than the headers. > > this then doesn't provide incentive for people to proliferate new HTTP > headers which would probably be either stripped or ignored by the vast > majority of deployed infrastructure. > > Regards > > Adrien > > > On 23/11/2010 11:12 a.m., Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> The idea proposed by Robert seems very interesting to me. >> I have remade my I-D according to the proposals. >> You are able to find it here: >> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized/ >> >> I think everything is clear in this document and >> it needs only editorial changes. IMO if nothing >> critical won't be proposed, I'll initiate the process >> of RFC publication. >> >> All the best, >> Mykyta Yevstifeyev > > It looks a bit like a ping/pong game, with your proposal, instead of having > a server ignoring headers, we'll have clients mostly not knowing what to do > with that new response. Besides, RFC2616 says explicitely that unknown > headers should be ignored by servers. > If your application is strict and conservative about what it accepts, you > could still use one of the 4xx error codes. They are plenty of them. > -- > - Sylvain > http://www.defuze.org > http://twitter.com/lawouach >
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 00:09:10 UTC