Re: Call for Adoption: Proxy Status

Hi Alex,


> On 23 Apr 2019, at 1:06 pm, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> 
> On 4/22/19 6:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> On 22 Apr 2019, at 2:50 am, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> On 4/10/19 6:24 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-proxy-status-00
> 
>>> I believe the scope of the document should be enlarged from the current
>>> "error details in the proxy-generated response" to something like "proxy
>>> status(es) when handling the message". After that, it should be adopted.
> 
>> Agreed; Piotr and I have already been discussing that. That said, we
>> should be careful to understand the delineation between this and the
>> Cache header.
> 
> I doubt we need two header fields sharing the same goal of reporting
> what happened at the proxy. One status header field is enough AFAICT.
> Any caching-related statuses are a subset of proxy statuses. The
> "universal" header must have a list syntax, but that syntax is required
> for each of the two header fields anyway.
> 
> If the Cache header has already been standardized, this draft can
> deprecate its early limited usage in favor of a "universal" Proxy-Status.

I disagree pretty strongly; caches can occur within the origin server (and one of the implementers interested in cache is doing exactly that), and caching semantics are detailed enough that they deserve separate attention and communication. 

Besides, we're trying to pave cowpaths here; Cache follows X-Cache, and this header is trying to align a variety of other behaviours. Let's not get too ambitious.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2019 05:39:03 UTC