Re: Early Hints (103)

> On 22 Nov 2016, at 22:26, Patrick McManus <> wrote:
> However, the draft was published pretty close to meeting time and there wasn't much space for discussion in the room. So before we do a Call For Adoption, I would like to hear some more discussion so the chairs can be confident there is interest - even if that discussion is "I would like to implement that" or "what does that accomplish?". Please do chime in, your silence will be taken for disinterest otherwise :).

I have no immediate intent to implement, but this is only due to limitations or constraints on the clients and servers I work on. I doubt any of my clients will implement Link header following directly because it’s of limited utility in programmatic clients. However, I intend for all my clients to tolerate such headers. On the server side the server I work on most right now has no support for returning headers before body computation, but I will investigate whether there is interest in providing such support. If there is, I will implement 103.

At a higher level, I’m +1 on this idea: I think it’s a good solution that uses established protocol tools to solve a very real problem.


Received on Thursday, 24 November 2016 17:05:47 UTC