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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 07 December 2011 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694CA21F8C65 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 08:00:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uxzy7Q9IXWEs for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 08:00:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9752121F8C63 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 08:00:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 426834234D; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:08:08 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4EDF8DB1.8080608@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:00:49 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
References: <4EDE4653.4040201@measurement-factory.com> <CAKTR038wj4cJsAyyULF+Cn+c9VAS_pkbJ+m2i602mgBm6x2sog@mail.gmail.com> <006601ccb488$1ea9faf0$5bfdf0d0$@lanthaler@gmx.net> <4EDEF4BD.10108@measurement-factory.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EDEF4BD.10108@measurement-factory.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:00:52 -0000

On 12/6/11 10:08 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 12/06/2011 07:29 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>
>>> A third way would be to return a 200 OK response with an extension
>>> response header or custom body that indicates which parts of the request
>>> were not "fully fulfilled".
>>>
>>> A forth way would be to include extension request headers or custom body
>>> pieces indicating client preferences with regard to considering
>>> partially fulfilled requests successful.
>>
>> What do you mean by extension response/request headers? Are you talking
>> about RFC 2774 [1] or just some proprietary (X-)headers?
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2774.txt
> 
> Any message extension headers as defined by RFC 2616 Section 7.1.
> Whether they are [going to be] documented by some RFC, have an X-
> prefix, and/or remain application-specific is not important for this
> discussion, IMHO.

I agree that it's not important in this context.

FYI, please note that we're trying to get rid of the x- prefix...

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash

Speaking of which, I need to ping the APPSAWG chairs about starting a
last call. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/