IETF Logo Mail Archive

Preference-Applied Response Header

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Thu, 07 March 2013 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 D17B721F8D68 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 06:35:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 6nlQp55ZvAbr for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 06:35:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF3321F8C16 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 06:35:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UDbt3-0007pt-IB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:33:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:33:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UDbt3-0007pt-IB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1UDbsp-0007mr-OG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:33:23 +0000
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.11.95]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1UDbsl-0007FP-8l for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:33:23 +0000
Received: from [192.168.137.21] (cpe-76-180-197-142.buffalo.res.rr.com [76.180.197.142]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r27EWqSr011210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:32:53 -0500
Message-ID: <5138A514.3090803@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:32:52 -0500
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090825)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.388399, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.5.19.222118
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_600_699 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NEG_0500 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_RESIDENTIAL 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __RATWARE_X_MAILER_CS_B 0, __RDNS_POOLED_2 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 128.2.11.95
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.2.11.95; envelope-from=murch@andrew.cmu.edu; helo=smtp.andrew.cmu.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.987, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.628
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UDbsl-0007FP-8l 6ca44856fbcd636cc0af2ddfcb95ba05
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Preference-Applied Response Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5138A514.3090803@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16984
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>

All,

Its not overly important, but as I was coding this up, I started 
wondering how to categorize this response header in httpbis-22 terms. 
Would this header be considered part of Control Data, Response Context, 
Representation Metadata, or something else?  Right now, I'm leaning 
towards Control Data since Prefer is similar to Expect which is 
categorized as a Control.

And while we're at it, what about these WebDAV response headers:

DAV: similar to Allow => Response Context?

Lock-Token: used in conditional requests => Validator?

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email