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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:26 UTC