- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:36:53 +1100
- To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 07/12/2011, at 11:57 AM, James Snell wrote: > Current iterations based on today's feedback... > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-06.txt > > Change summary: > > - replaced user-agent with client What's the reasoning here? Do you expect intermediaries to have preferences? > - brought Preference-Applied back This needs to be discussed. I'm very uneasy about turning this into Yet Another HTTP Negotiation Mechanism. > - Fixed grammar for Prefer and Preference-Applied > - ABNF references > - Added examples > > - James > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7 December 2011 03:29, Alex Rousskov >> <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote: >>>> 7. The "wait" Preference >>> Do you have to limit this feature to user-agents? >> >> Good point. In our work on timeouts we observed that intermediaries >> are equally capable of placing their own constraints on time. In >> fact, there's nothing inherently wrong with an intermediary changing >> the value to a lower value (my client was prepared to wait 30s, but I >> have policy that limits this to 10), though increasing the value might >> not work out so well. >> >> --Martin > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 06:37:23 UTC