- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:00:49 -0700
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, 'Sam Johnston' <samj@samj.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
On 12/6/11 10:08 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 12/06/2011 07:29 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> >>> A third way would be to return a 200 OK response with an extension >>> response header or custom body that indicates which parts of the request >>> were not "fully fulfilled". >>> >>> A forth way would be to include extension request headers or custom body >>> pieces indicating client preferences with regard to considering >>> partially fulfilled requests successful. >> >> What do you mean by extension response/request headers? Are you talking >> about RFC 2774 [1] or just some proprietary (X-)headers? >> >> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2774.txt > > Any message extension headers as defined by RFC 2616 Section 7.1. > Whether they are [going to be] documented by some RFC, have an X- > prefix, and/or remain application-specific is not important for this > discussion, IMHO. I agree that it's not important in this context. FYI, please note that we're trying to get rid of the x- prefix... http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash Speaking of which, I need to ping the APPSAWG chairs about starting a last call. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 16:01:30 UTC