- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:02:55 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-06-09 09:22, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > I just noticed that the definition of the Warning header field > includes a required host or pseudonym between the warn-code and > the warn-text, and further that the warn-text is a quoted-string. > > Since there are no examples provided, and the table of warn-codes > makes them look like status-code reason-phrase, it should be no > surprise that implementations send things like > > Warning: 110 Response is stale > Warning: 110 squid/3.2.0.5 "Response is stale" > Warning: 111 squid/3.2.0.5 "Revalidation failed" > Warning: 111 Revalidation failed > Warning: 112 Disconnected Operation > Warning: 214 host.example.com Transformation applied > > In fact, the only places I can find correctly formatted Warning > header fields is in an internal Apache debugging module (mod_policy, > abusing that field for other means) and within a BEA example for SIP. > > Warning: 307 isi.edu "Session parameter 'foo' not understood" > > I haven't found any that send the optional warn-date. > > Obviously, examples are needed in p6, unless I can delete the > header field and be done with it. I agree we need examples; I'll work on a proposal (ticket: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/496) Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 13:03:41 UTC