Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP-Date
Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> Mon, 05 August 2019 12:31 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 94F661201AA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 05:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.201, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 jErVUdQZjV2u for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 05:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D53D112015B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 05:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1huc7M-000877-D3 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:29:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:29:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1huc7M-000877-D3@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4c]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <robipolli@gmail.com>) id 1huc7J-00086U-WE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:29:34 +0000
Received: from mail-ua1-x930.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::930]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <robipolli@gmail.com>) id 1huc7I-0005jg-M9 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:29:33 +0000
Received: by mail-ua1-x930.google.com with SMTP id 8so32182711uaz.11 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 05:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ClEsYfXGMWJ8QS5v+YopdZxo39vfKvtc/B6kSwf7K+0=; b=jjrGHOpVUpsolIJq3G6iMLpNCIsm8kXu9Llt5RSCyX1EcxmeHncxlvLrBEFVcaqQxc GGpSHyojob2+nxOy+e+xizh6FXzJanevTc1GUPlGGllMTUpCe4QtYGpU701fevD+83hf RTYN9G9hXMrPRdmGPtvTPTz4ICI4k1lnSYmoS+Q90KsXtq02TUPKZZEVxAz9E5NcC6MQ UcOq4HL3mN/nbN17rVNrv3+elV53PCtSi/4cmXS3lRMRv9qe4mIozIJ+zEwO98vfV+Fj F2rlmkndKHKODYc2exBVly0wHUhbTHwQ7cUZBJ41FeBnGpi6+G5YwRuI+KwPrYYxonCW JOWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ClEsYfXGMWJ8QS5v+YopdZxo39vfKvtc/B6kSwf7K+0=; b=Oz9I5kha7N4INOvHNPKe9CsxG1yaSpQdO4GT7NpJlvXAMGybnE28vW4NQC/QoYcvMB zsW1yjCQUoCiQKuzAHMnERI3JqhyikkBf3Red8KiiGPU5zkN7rcfnQqapEL7KqTy8glw AAfGAy1DiMvybf6twv0HWRLSRe3dxVJtn9Ax9bXDpAGgIyB1PNUbcSynBR2vMXN/PoMF /aDned7VQsAXr/4PnXwKCdoSlTlWuUYdiK27/UHeLQYBuqYMTaboUt8VCm2HLo9gASZo jSE+5NFXfyx3lo5hSTWn2G7XwVSEh70aiIN0jn0pvWUFcR/lCmwWLPVfnuPRUkQq/vt4 ZZ1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXXGClwqcBKOnWTFswhqROWJnpGnV3Oa+mJ2NqRQEspS4A30Ca6 sO9gwj94cFfR5OSrIOVcyNQyiu7PnTR0po0I+cxZbQexgR8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9z8bAgJ0JHu57G+SyaQIb4ONFoMQYk7FUCG7Tfk1wvcGf31E8a7dHgyxN7hGLQDQYucChruoqGVcJ6Rm9V9k=
X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2e0e:: with SMTP id t14mr73034362uaj.119.1565008150856; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 05:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP9qbHXfX9Y7OjfP3gEtxCtDkd1nZwe7B9CK5FY_OeKf1BQX4A@mail.gmail.com> <716beea3-d7f7-4911-18bc-a23fd6b382fc@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <716beea3-d7f7-4911-18bc-a23fd6b382fc@treenet.co.nz>
From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 14:28:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP9qbHVHJh6XVwqHpK6wmmh_SRdSx5mO8j+CGrPbrxDzW5-2PQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::930; envelope-from=robipolli@gmail.com; helo=mail-ua1-x930.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1huc7I-0005jg-M9 6658cdcc78ac7368a62088b4cc3671f7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP-Date
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAP9qbHVHJh6XVwqHpK6wmmh_SRdSx5mO8j+CGrPbrxDzW5-2PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36933
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi Amos, and thanks for your reply! Il giorno lun 5 ago 2019 alle ore 14:06 Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> ha scritto: > > if we had to reboot the retry-after header, would we use the HTTP-date > > or the unix-timestamp syntax? > Why re-design it at all? To clarify, I don't want to redesign Retry-After :) Instead I'm working on a new I-D to standardize `RateLimit-*` headers: - https://ioggstream.github.io/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers.html and I'm investigating the relations with `Retry-After`: - https://github.com/ioggstream/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers/issues/15#issuecomment-518199305 > If anything reduce it to just the delay-seconds field value. That is > compatible with any time locale. Agree. You can see: - https://ioggstream.github.io/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers/draft-polli-ratelimit-headers.html#rfc.section.3.3 If you are interested in the I-D, your suggestions and contributions will be precious and welcome. Have a nice day, R
- Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP-Date Roberto Polli
- Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP… Amos Jeffries
- Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP… Roberto Polli
- Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP… Felipe Gasper
- Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP… Philipp Junghannß
- Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP… Wenbo Zhu
- Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP… Philipp Junghannß
- Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP… Amos Jeffries
- Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP… Roberto Polli
- Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP… Wenbo Zhu