IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 02 February 2015 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03201A0033 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:21:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 RgyN6dYtOBvh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:21:45 -0800 (PST)
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 9C9AB1A0030 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:21:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YICDk-0005iF-GW for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:19:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:19:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YICDk-0005iF-GW@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1YICDf-0005h6-Pm for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:18:55 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1YICDf-0000Li-02 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:18:55 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.175] ([84.187.35.199]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MLunc-1YJI8i10TU-007luj; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:18:24 +0100
Message-ID: <54CF32C5.8010402@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:18:13 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <54CCB62F.8050004@gmx.de> <EBFB3731-974E-44A5-A4A6-28413F2567A9@mnot.net> <54CF2DEE.7000101@gmx.de> <2F61F2B2-F6F6-4E7C-A4F8-A1045609E094@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <2F61F2B2-F6F6-4E7C-A4F8-A1045609E094@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:FA09WlsPJdmFb1VFABOUDvJWROp7CD9KrT3XMOzeUxKnzFYgw/U BgZVo9y+AJeoWCY2P7XuJRweUNlxJUw2oOBxRsaZd41647G5ADFzI/rtWyBbFZjR6VXB+ex rRY6+m/DSC1Qyvv0j5gU/Kp6spmXU/z1tyORIYuuLDwa+u0JvpAy/z/vC5PmN9CjO8RRI6P KLI3bMWX7K99ulv160QMg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.268, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YICDf-0000Li-02 f66aa6f8ac317f4df636fbb8c75d1ef0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54CF32C5.8010402@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28738
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 2015-02-02 09:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Yes, but the semantics of those headers are exactly the same in both directions.

I think that's the case here, too. No?

Best regards, Julian

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status