- From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 13:53:19 +0900
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANatvzwD9C28kCA1WHTJO1dxDUNthdAi86Tmrg+kgm_t84eFVg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, Amos, Thank you for your comment. 2021年8月16日(月) 14:10 Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>: > IMO a mechanism that uses Client-Hints to modify the response type of > TRACE method would meet requirements of this feature better than > .well-known URIs. > While we can use theTRACE method, I'm not sure if that simplifies things. The key difference from the TRACE method and self-trace is that the former works at resource level, while the latter works at the connection level. TRACE has to be a special method because it changes how the resource specified by the URI responds. In contrast, trace of the underlying connection is not a property of an URI. Based on that, I tend to believe that we can use the URI to designate a service providing the self trace. If we look that way, use of a well-known URI is a good fit, and it does not have issues like what happens with fallbacks. > > The TRACE mechanism has existed in HTTP since 1.1 so all agents should > be able to support it cleanly by now. > > Agents not implementing the new mechanism will "fallback" to responding > with details of what the responding server sees arriving: Via, Forwarded > traces etc. Which may be of some use for troubleshooting even in absence > of the self-trace information. > > Client-Hints comes with most HTTP handling behaviours pre-defined, so > should not need re-defining for this new mechanism. > > > Amos > > -- Kazuho Oku
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2021 04:53:44 UTC