IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: p2: Expectation extensions

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Thu, 25 April 2013 23:34 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 C0EBC21F9738 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:34:02 -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 KGoPXNN-v8uV for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E8021F9736 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UVVer-0006tD-6m for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:32:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:32:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UVVer-0006tD-6m@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1UVVen-0006sY-55 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:32:53 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1UVVem-0000qI-B2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:32:53 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.28]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M4lZj-1UhEc01OdJ-00yz0f for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:32:25 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2013 23:32:24 -0000
Received: from p54B4E922.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO netb.Speedport_W_700V) [84.180.233.34] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 26 Apr 2013 01:32:24 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/QReZJh67Q9VmUkRRcbyAeMeXnZAieDQGyyzh2tW Euwcp5QbCpYxti
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:32:26 +0200
Message-ID: <ueejn812c32qjethcd4c847tkh68b13mkn@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <0509CFF1-0A48-46D9-93F0-5CEF60A9DE37@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <0509CFF1-0A48-46D9-93F0-5CEF60A9DE37@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=derhoermi@gmx.net; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.219, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UVVem-0000qI-B2 8e690e37059c43d4d1b37a03f2d55543
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Expectation extensions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/ueejn812c32qjethcd4c847tkh68b13mkn@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17585
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>

* Mark Nottingham wrote:
>p2 5.1.1 requires that an unrecognised expectation be replied to with a 417 Expectation Failed. 
>
>In my testing, it's fairly common for servers to ignore an unregistered expectation (e.g., "foo"). 
>
>Given how many problems we already have with Expect, should we consider 
>disallowing further extensions here, and removing this requirement?

I would like to see a proper rewrite of the specification text here. In
general, I would disagree with changes as you propose; for instance, re-
moving the requirement entirely would seem to make it difficult to un-
derstand what the original idea behind `Expect` was, and it would seem
that pointing out interoperability problems with respect to `Expect` is
sufficient to discourage extensions; why should we forbid future experi-
ments that depend on `Expect` beyond that?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email