Re: p2: Considerations for new headers

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 24 April 2013 08:07 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 E422221F8EB9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
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 OHsXFpx1xGCj for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6353F21F8EB2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUujY-0001EU-EK for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:07:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:07:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUujY-0001EU-EK@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UUujU-0001Dn-DL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:07:16 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UUujP-0000Rc-Q8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:07:16 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.29]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M5JXV-1UiJVS0J6V-00zXBE for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:06:45 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2013 08:06:44 -0000
Received: from p54BB32E4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [84.187.50.228] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 24 Apr 2013 10:06:44 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1938qYQg3p3ohI2xY2bYc9s+c2Kxs4DKFKuVz55vp 51MCSFwM7pfmI0
Message-ID: <5177928F.80108@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:06:39 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <B191C287-C71F-424A-9270-BF84D118E423@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <B191C287-C71F-424A-9270-BF84D118E423@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UUujP-0000Rc-Q8 bbd9708d354d2525c977689e86419590
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Considerations for new headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5177928F.80108@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17531
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 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