IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Wed, 07 December 2011 02:30 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF8921F8B12 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:30:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.397, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 GqhYUIg5QVtn for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6262C21F8B11 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Dec 2011 02:29:59 -0000
Received: from cbs1005165.staff.ad.curtin.edu.au (EHLO cbs1005165) [134.7.114.19] by mail.gmx.net (mp023) with SMTP; 07 Dec 2011 03:29:59 +0100
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+WX98k8pyW7w9C/uuvJda/GrKsuqSVFkgTQsJHT8 ZidRdSZ2jhtd56
From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: 'Sam Johnston' <samj@samj.net>, 'Alex Rousskov' <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
References: <4EDE4653.4040201@measurement-factory.com> <CAKTR038wj4cJsAyyULF+Cn+c9VAS_pkbJ+m2i602mgBm6x2sog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKTR038wj4cJsAyyULF+Cn+c9VAS_pkbJ+m2i602mgBm6x2sog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:29:39 +0800
Message-ID: <006601ccb488$1ea9faf0$5bfdf0d0$@lanthaler>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acy0SpsfIXhFE4M+THq+nIxb6G2H/QAPLC3A
Content-Language: en-us
x-ms-exchange-organization-originalclientipaddress: 10.9.122.7
x-ms-exchange-organization-originalserveripaddress: 10.9.123.35
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, apps-discuss@ietf.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 02:30:05 -0000

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


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email