Re: Semantics of multiple 103s in Early Hints

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:51:09AM +0900, Kazuho Oku wrote:
> Willy, Stefan,
> Thank you for your comments.
> I agree with Willy that we should explain what a client would expect
> (rather than explaining what a client should not expect) for the
> multiple 103 case. There is no reason to use uppercase verbs here,
> considering the fact that it is a clarification of how the text should
> be interpreted.
> I have updated the PR to use the word "union" as suggested by Willy.
> Please let me know if you have any other suggestions / concerns.

It's better but I think there are still too many negations in the
sentence : "non-existence... does not indicate... absence... a server
can omit". I know that some people are having big difficulties with
such constructs, for having met some.

What about something like this instead :

  A client must be prepared to receive multiple 103 (Early Hints) responses
  in any order coming from multiple intermediaries as well as the origin
  server along the path between the client and the server. Given that such
  agents will often rely on different but overlapping policies to emit these
  responses, it is likely that some header fields may be repeated. The client
  is expected to simply consider the union of all these header fields as if
  they were received in a single response.


Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2017 05:29:39 UTC