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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9FB1A0390
 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.288
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723,
 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 QMkCgVZxd1a6
 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
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 851601A0378
 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>;
 Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>)
 id 1YchZ8-00062A-KQ
 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:49:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:49:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YchZ8-00062A-KQ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39])
 by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <self@brendanlong.com>) id 1YchZ3-00061N-D9
 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:49:45 +0000
Received: from li799-54.members.linode.com ([104.200.21.54]
 helo=brendanlong.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
 (envelope-from <self@brendanlong.com>) id 1YchZ2-0003PU-7n
 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:49:45 +0000
Received: by brendanlong.com (Postfix, from userid 1002)
 id BC3FD50037; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brendanlong.com;
 s=default; t=1427752158;
 bh=Roauan+6bmILuSOwnteq1WFX8hQlzWq+gsdYVgkr2HI=;
 h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
 b=S6bEBStUpPUxpB4KFkmI8NAL4SYV1lZUMYdlS0qr+746Ra6kQOqXihC6kkgQfyegB
 avuAl55CO6fBcAqoBjBQiLKxC0oINyDOYyKU+7ltunMvAe2aHhgp0sJmB+y9yYvN/m
 ULPsSbP+Rvc+/SNllbS50LFGhZw/aXLyZ7oHZn/w=
Received: from [192.168.1.150] (96-42-255-30.dhcp.roch.mn.charter.com
 [96.42.255.30])
 by brendanlong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B43350036;
 Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:49:17 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brendanlong.com;
 s=default; t=1427752157;
 bh=Roauan+6bmILuSOwnteq1WFX8hQlzWq+gsdYVgkr2HI=;
 h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
 b=Ilk9n5gX0Ebl6Qn+YooZ62m02V7Kxmvvsbw8afM2UXLlKHBEfRqajT59zPFA5/uR8
 G4b/yVEHi7p3hf4OvzKX/NcNPchrtAQe6uf0qJE4YKiSOcjdvoUjX42zUxBelM2Jez
 a2XvxlT7JpCaJpC+LKHTw5D7aXhQM7PPVZIQ8b9A=
Message-ID: <5519C4DC.90101@brendanlong.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:49:16 -0500
From: Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <5515D627.1000106@brendanlong.com>	<CABkgnnW1hR=utRNAYJhYDLtQiofAjdCYj1UQyC13duNMmOA5Ng@mail.gmail.com>	<55181B76.5060008@brendanlong.com>
 <CABkgnnV2AKxCXEmmjPhGwYTfRwQprO+zxCoqudmPG61TWtz-yg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV2AKxCXEmmjPhGwYTfRwQprO+zxCoqudmPG61TWtz-yg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.200.21.54; envelope-from=self@brendanlong.com;
 helo=brendanlong.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.220, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YchZ2-0003PU-7n 65e07848a4ae751accbef61846754b71
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: "Timeout" request header to tell server to wait for resource to
 become available
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5519C4DC.90101@brendanlong.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29092
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>

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    On 03/30/2015 10:20 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CABkgnnV2AKxCXEmmjPhGwYTfRwQprO+zxCoqudmPG61TWtz-yg@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">If-None-Match in combination with Prefer: wait does
      exactly what you want here.
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    I've read RFC 7240 a few times now, and I'm not convinced that it's
    specific enough, but I guess it will work.<br>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre class="newpage">   1.  Return a 202 (Accepted) response for asynchronous processing if
   the request cannot be processed within 10 seconds.  An undefined
   "priority" preference is also specified:

     POST /some-resource HTTP/1.1
     Host: example.org
     Content-Type: text/plain
     Prefer: respond-async, wait=10
     Prefer: priority=5</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre class="newpage"><span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7240#section-4.3">4.3</a>.  The "wait" Preference</h3></span>

   The "wait" preference can be used to establish an upper bound on the
   length of time, in seconds, the client expects it will take the
   server to process the request once it has been received.  In the case
   that generating a response will take longer than the time specified,
   the server, or proxy, can choose to utilize an asynchronous
   processing model by returning -- for example -- a 202 (Accepted)
   response.</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Waiting for a file to appear or change doesn't really fit "the
    request cannot be processed". It's just that we *don't want the
    request to be processed*.<br>
    <br>
    I'll make my server implement it with this header though, and I
    guess if it takes off it'll become de-facto correct behavior.<br>
  </body>
</html>

