IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 103 (Early Hints) vs. response headers

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 17 March 2017 00:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB8D129B8C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vv9lTuMCK5G7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43D97129B8B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cofsJ-00088x-NI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:36:11 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:36:11 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cofsJ-00088x-NI@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cofs9-00087F-Of for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:36:01 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cofs3-0005Ov-Mh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:35:56 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 209C422E253; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:35:31 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzyeYxHFDDh-Hms6V0gJ+MkgW6v78uLj9bieR_nAaOfPHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:35:29 +1100
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D375D11E-988A-48AE-B9A9-E3B20C228570@mnot.net>
References: <CALHHdhwQBfBN0Xz-4kxRJrJekiCLnro1i-MVw954wTRyOWAtvw@mail.gmail.com> <E10BB6E0-3BD8-44EC-AE18-076D38077371@mnot.net> <CANatvzxS7Z9U5Jr2N_EeyY5NUrZ-weuGsetuUQdLWGGOQKVLNw@mail.gmail.com> <20170315062242.GB13814@1wt.eu> <CANatvzyeYxHFDDh-Hms6V0gJ+MkgW6v78uLj9bieR_nAaOfPHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.592, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cofs3-0005Ov-Mh c8c6cac6503d6fec06836b89fe687a08
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 103 (Early Hints) vs. response headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D375D11E-988A-48AE-B9A9-E3B20C228570@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33744
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

> On 17 Mar 2017, at 12:55 am, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> While I would not say that RFC 6265 and Early Hints would contradict,
> I still think that the requirement of how a Set-Cookie header _can_ be
> handled is narrowed by Early Hints. Consider the response below.
> 
> HTTP/1.1 103 Early Hints
> Set-Cookie: a=b
> 
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Length: 12
> 
> Hello world
> 
> RFC 6265 allows the client to store cookie `a` by stating that a
> client MAY accept a Set-Cookie header within any 100-level response.

Just a note -- one of the possible outcomes is that we decide that's a bug in 6265. Do we have any data on clients with cookie jars that actually do this?

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email