Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP-Date

Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> Tue, 06 August 2019 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 BAB9B12016F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.201, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 ZWc5xRiW3C2W for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E378C12013C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hv4ZL-0002LU-OR for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 18:52:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 18:52:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hv4ZL-0002LU-OR@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <wenboz@google.com>) id 1hv4ZH-0002K4-Fo for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 18:52:19 +0000
Received: from mail-ot1-x330.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::330]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <wenboz@google.com>) id 1hv4ZG-0004Cq-6z for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 18:52:19 +0000
Received: by mail-ot1-x330.google.com with SMTP id r6so95089723oti.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 11:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eAMtWQFCWXP+jbrTjhgpmM/qTOcbBOoE+8lNsePs9Sw=; b=niruRwK9pII2pAc2Q7PpwTFB/ujtGGWAYrRmLxamAZ5w0wttK9sxB2YTJJpDGOpQD9 uZwXRlD8Gy+5kQ7JXhvoVi4qYJeqmt/SzOY0vtAzMbRLXmO+J5pxAi/u5oKhJaRBihe0 vsUroYfEB/qPuADMYnbdh+OhpYQF7zvl4aTi9ylPSQ+H+WLwPoi9SLOBYcXqkc89t1re /ZYLX2a5ef1hOrWzz7M/Ddv/YthZL/6xk6cmJ5NvAjf9vXZb5Xd/RfCAWriv8PsvV0x3 OwbgVOMUOW4bNTGl8EjREB7S5HCRBoQoyA/aJboMDyX4YkKYyYMzyV/KCkyUMmKRiIcK LWzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eAMtWQFCWXP+jbrTjhgpmM/qTOcbBOoE+8lNsePs9Sw=; b=caq0B57USVo9TSAjTX2INU4fW7metlVIgTch59bemJXTV+rrg9qvBmg9ncvnqWMHKF bKM+tWMan2+Wuz3Zp3ivbT1Ff0y2egLkK5iAzclHg0kVN5+aMcJaJucxgz4JHr13KJyn 3RhHb1IY+NRMayv4+BQM5RjAOwLOGQMxoSLpiussymeyAUqR1hPqv/Y7Zq0FXMrtQZOK sHcDGLZyV6c478UcuVnQC63oFyvj2XqeNKbjio/3aIJXp/pQkUV3MWh25tZpFRuR+NtI 38kqo9gEsBLklvcWmZptJvwMo9Pjbr24bfiw3f4un0VeVuW6JzKF6fUBavn6H/6iH2QV q+2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVyjbDWWFpMaeXAOAtHfA9/pFxaE02T7nKReonaoMtQH+4n+UXH zyr+Fv14P/VT4+3z4RySpr4NHiwVDQuVbyLgyuVYUg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxr4QIPobYVLGar1jI8SIoLiUXN//KGz3SaEOPbWaAurrTxeFMpIXZLR0SoKWpLMA9MR2WA9amcnRi/hiis2ys=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8049:: with SMTP id b9mr5188552ior.199.1565117516736; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 11:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP9qbHXfX9Y7OjfP3gEtxCtDkd1nZwe7B9CK5FY_OeKf1BQX4A@mail.gmail.com> <716beea3-d7f7-4911-18bc-a23fd6b382fc@treenet.co.nz> <CACHSkNqBCvegNCW5-cQPt93M-_RCp+2Cw+grPMn9Kz2jgrPi+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACHSkNqBCvegNCW5-cQPt93M-_RCp+2Cw+grPMn9Kz2jgrPi+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:51:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD3-0rMY=+HD=d5cW6=-aa3tsV4oXnU39ArDO18XjhWJvQ3Gug@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philipp_Junghann=C3=9F?= <teamhydro55555@gmail.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e62ad058f7751de"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::330; envelope-from=wenboz@google.com; helo=mail-ot1-x330.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hv4ZG-0004Cq-6z 95d33c5c9210fd60bd7540f67c8a58c0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP-Date
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAD3-0rMY=+HD=d5cW6=-aa3tsV4oXnU39ArDO18XjhWJvQ3Gug@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36936
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:59 PM Philipp Junghannß <teamhydro55555@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> delay in whatever time unit needed is a good Idea, totally agree.
> compatible to basically anything without needing to care for DST, leap
> days/seconds or whatever, just a stupidly simple second counter.
>
And it needs to be a float type (32-bit) to support sub-second intervals.
(also my earlier question on "Prefer: timeout= ...."  ... )



> Am Mo., 5. Aug. 2019 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Amos Jeffries <
> squid3@treenet.co.nz>;:
>
>> On 5/08/19 10:38 pm, Roberto Polli wrote:
>> > Hi @all,
>> >
>> > While reading the Retry-After specs I was guessing...
>> >
>> > if we had to reboot the retry-after header, would we use the HTTP-date
>> >  or the unix-timestamp syntax?
>>
>>
>> Why re-design it at all?
>>
>> If anything reduce it to just the delay-seconds field value. That is
>> compatible with any time locale.
>>
>> Amos
>>
>>