- From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:03:45 +0200
- To: Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4CEBD7D1.6030701@gmail.com>
23.11.2010 16:59, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote: > > uldn't be a great trouble for servers to add another one HEADER > (not separate > status code!) with a list of headers it hasn't recognized. The aim > of this header is to > inform the client about not processed headers. However there is no > MUST criterion > for avoiding sending the 'not-recognizable' headers. If the client > wants them to be sent, > it will sent, but it is only RECOMMENDED that these headers are > not sent (siad in other > words). > Moreover, if a sever sends the corresponding headers, a client MAY > try to change it > to acceptable one (for server) in case it is critical for it (client). > Finally, server SHOULD (and not MUST) send the > 'Headers-Not-Recognized' Header. > If it is a big difficulty for them (but it's hard to imagine), > they won't do this. > I don't understand what all this fuss is for? > > > No fuss at all, just discussion ;) > The problem is not much about the level of compliance you're setting > in your proposal but the rationale behind it. As Julian said, for > debugging purpose I guess this could be useful but in production, I'm > not certain clients will change their headers just because a server > can't deal with them, more so if the request goes through anyway. But aren't debugging purposes a weighty argument? The start of end-user service is debugging and testing - so it as important as routine use? > > -- > - Sylvain > http://www.defuze.org > http://twitter.com/lawouach Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 15:04:12 UTC