W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2019

Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP-Date

From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:51:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD3-0rMY=+HD=d5cW6=-aa3tsV4oXnU39ArDO18XjhWJvQ3Gug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philipp Junghannß <teamhydro55555@gmail.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:59 PM Philipp Junghannß <teamhydro55555@gmail.com>
wrote:

> delay in whatever time unit needed is a good Idea, totally agree.
> compatible to basically anything without needing to care for DST, leap
> days/seconds or whatever, just a stupidly simple second counter.
>
And it needs to be a float type (32-bit) to support sub-second intervals.
(also my earlier question on "Prefer: timeout= ...."  ... )



> Am Mo., 5. Aug. 2019 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Amos Jeffries <
> squid3@treenet.co.nz>:
>
>> On 5/08/19 10:38 pm, Roberto Polli wrote:
>> > Hi @all,
>> >
>> > While reading the Retry-After specs I was guessing...
>> >
>> > if we had to reboot the retry-after header, would we use the HTTP-date
>> >  or the unix-timestamp syntax?
>>
>>
>> Why re-design it at all?
>>
>> If anything reduce it to just the delay-seconds field value. That is
>> compatible with any time locale.
>>
>> Amos
>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2019 18:52:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:39 UTC