W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Nice

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:36:31 +1000
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4C32F7D7-C15E-45B8-B9F2-650A558821FF@mnot.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
FWIW, in your use case, Martin, the intermediary is acting as the origin server -- it's a gateway, not a proxy.


On 17/08/2013, at 4:40 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16 August 2013 11:29, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That said, I'm thinking that this could easily be implemented as a
>> Prefer token per http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18
> I did consider Prefer when putting this together, and I almost used it
> (you'll notice that there is a nice+wait example in the doc already).
> The reason I didn't use Prefer is that my understanding is that Prefer
> is probably going to be ignored by intermediaries, since the
> formulation of Prefer is such that an origin server is where it is
> targeted.  I also saw "Preference-Applied" as being a little
> disingenuous in this context, despite on first blush appearing to be
> relevant, I just can't conceive of any value in anything other than
> the negative (that is, this preference was NOT applied).
> That said, it does fit from one perspective.  That is, this is an
> eminently ignorable header, and designed as such.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 00:37:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC