Re: p2: Considerations for new headers

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 24 April 2013 08:19 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 403B621F85D7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 bFOxfx09Gsyp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5328B21F8551 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUuuF-0000LC-MI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:18:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:18:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUuuF-0000LC-MI@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>) id 1UUuuB-0000KS-Lf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:18:19 +0000
Received: from waldorf.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>) id 1UUuuA-00017M-Gf for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:18:19 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1366791476; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=y9/DYaHCLS2ayW/jNduogehLH+zBrUmF5kdN094bK10=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=eNp3iFKjeOj7Orwx2P9RzRBWuTrfroX+7Ik5yZXVe9QtSxylcUtOf6dYNo/GoTDt0tb35M 154F2Ox4LY7QYfnnhnO731ifbgcNJQo4LSy9FViPMJcHHwn1fJ+SRfbPoTFKAYEWSeetBg GPzObCtY7SXRzrfDBQ9MRGFbqD3cEe8=;
Received: from [188.28.42.32] (188.28.42.32.threembb.co.uk [188.28.42.32]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <UXeVNAAf4U15@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:17:56 +0100
References: <B191C287-C71F-424A-9270-BF84D118E423@mnot.net> <5177928F.80108@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <5177928F.80108@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <95E053C2-268B-4BD0-9034-C57F5EF68C6E@isode.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206)
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:20:38 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.3.217.251; envelope-from=alexey.melnikov@isode.com; helo=waldorf.isode.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UUuuA-00017M-Gf 70489d4bf9c78f9afff442e8f862d495
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Considerations for new headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/95E053C2-268B-4BD0-9034-C57F5EF68C6E@isode.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17532
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>

Looks good to me as well.

On 24 Apr 2013, at 09:06, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; wrote:

> On 2013-04-24 10:03, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> We should consider adding the following to the laundry list of considerations in p2 8.3.1:
>> 
>> * Whether the field should be stored by origin servers that understand it upon a PUT request.
>> 
>> Furthermore, I think we should change:
>> 
>> * How the header field might interact with caching (see [Part6]).
>> 
>> to:
>> 
>> * When the header is used in requests and affects response selection [ref], it is good practice to advise listing that header in the Vary response header [ref].
>> 
>> Finally, we should add (near the top of the section):
>> 
>> """
>> New header fields cannot change the semantics of a message in an incompatible fashion. That is, it is not possible to require recipients to understand a header field through its mere presence. However, new methods and status codes can require the presence of headers in their definitions, in the scope of the message they occur within.
>> """
>> 
>> Make sense?
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
>