[apps-discuss] Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status

"Markus Lanthaler" <Markus.Lanthaler@curtin.edu.au> Tue, 06 December 2011 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA1011E80AF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 18:59:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1urdhvR+477c for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 18:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E87711E80A1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 18:59:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Dec 2011 02:59:25 -0000
Received: from cbs1005165.staff.ad.curtin.edu.au (EHLO cbs1005165) [] by mail.gmx.net (mp072) with SMTP; 06 Dec 2011 03:59:25 +0100
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+x7pt+EMaxjtK4H2pv7N86sLeuuZq4NuPa7Vnr14 /V690G9oy1SWmZ
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <Markus.Lanthaler@curtin.edu.au>
Sender: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:59:20 +0800
Message-ID: <001901ccb3c3$115bdf50$34139df0$@Lanthaler@curtin.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01CCB406.1F7F1F50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcyzwwBapwnZz/dzRdCv16nR2pJAPA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: [apps-discuss] Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 02:59:31 -0000



First of all sorry for the cross-post, but I wasn't sure where to send it.


I've just stumbled across the "draft-nottingham-http-new-status" ID and was
wondering whether you considered to include a status code for partially
fulfilled requests. It is not unusual that a request can be considered as
successful even if it couldn't be fulfilled completely.


A purchase order, for example, could still be created even though not all
order items are available for order. The client can then revoke his order or
proceed with the checkout without having to place another order and risking
that other items get unavailable (think of ticketing where you often have
the possibility to reserve tickets for some minutes).


This would reduce the number of required round-trips and potential "lost
update" problems.




Markus Lanthaler