- From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:02:53 +0900
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2017-02-24 9:12 GMT+09:00 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>: > My .02 - > >> On 24 Feb 2017, at 2:27 am, Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> HTTP/1.1 103 Early Hints >> Link: </another-resource>; rel=preload >> Warning: 299 - "something is not quite right" >> >> HTTP/1.1 200 OK >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:49:43 GMT >> Content-Type: text/html >> Link: </another-resource>; rel=preload >> Connection: close >> >> ...text goes here... >> >> Should it log/display the warning (as applied to the 103 response), or >> discard it (as missing from the 200 response)? >> >> Should the spec for 103 be more explicit about this? > > My reading is that "officially", the Warning is not in the response; the server thought something was wrong early in the process, but then realised it was fine. > > So, it MAY log/display the warning, but if it doesn't, it's still conformant. > > Some more examples might help. RFC 6265 states that a user agent "MAY ignore Set-Cookie headers contained in responses with 100-level status codes". So to me it seems that if we state in Early Hints that the headers of a 103 response is ones that are applied (speculatively) to the final response but not the informational response itself, then we'd be overriding RFC 6265. > Cheers, > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > -- Kazuho Oku
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 03:03:26 UTC