Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt

Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de> Wed, 02 November 2016 15:59 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 E96DD129560 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VsIsEWSE3hcG for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 08:59:02 -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 5F30412950D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 08:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c1xsH-0005IK-96 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:54:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:54:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c1xsH-0005IK-96@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>) id 1c1xsA-0005Gt-6K for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:54:42 +0000
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.135]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>) id 1c1xs4-0001vx-1u for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:54:36 +0000
Received: from ginster ([2.244.56.241]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MfvWO-1cGLUS1wYu-00NAn3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:54:08 +0100
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:53:59 +0100
From: Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20161102165359.4f837bdb@ginster>
In-Reply-To: <5D00C20A-0421-406A-AE2A-79E713507D02@lukasa.co.uk>
References: <147792294052.32397.15544665152412530374.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANatvzwm_T-HW0yT1MAWEUrfw5OAVkmAZe890575qg8HuU9Z_Q@mail.gmail.com> <86447165-100C-407D-8512-A32F93B11BBA@lukasa.co.uk> <CANatvzzRvbEjy4AqDHeRtQfcJX0Ls14qJf0qv0QWZBMMd-HRnQ@mail.gmail.com> <5f155947-e74c-0761-b5d4-64f8aabec846@gmx.de> <F2EE2E10-9129-47D4-8C6E-BEE079503F34@lukasa.co.uk> <86EAA775-324C-41C9-87E0-9D04E51EE141@gbiv.com> <5D00C20A-0421-406A-AE2A-79E713507D02@lukasa.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:2gLGers/sHMN2r9xP83nwX37tMgOltc5Nso56RGbO9clPsNybN+ OBu8LKvXiSv/Mm2kzLMrLYgkJZjnw4ZBmrqwsOAUT9XUTBXzrQJTH/zQeASmzPWN4lIWNXl ji8iCymKxf0EYKPRRTF2jJc8eBmEY/HAqyrvslaAZPlt/L7DuDHHaCK3Xg02O3f7laa2Wzp oCetpEZZc3/LaPNXruNbw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:sNJRrZ3tDfM=:Ak1WWnFLYaOafj4cBqfLys SByBdB87B1fKPvL6I099Hk9hnx9HG5aOATnuzOllRBr0guV5zrlJyrTdTFQbsKXlAoawlze60 gLTagfwDXNk4Xtz2Ppe134RuAiWt3Xasv0uSQ7JqCIAAWErTewQelMsy/HwFQS7SdKQeKJwmR IgqDRkZZTWhYgBehZVV2wVraajpn6H7JCAGbiVle8GHAV7V2flHrQIMQN9Ug7aM8s0lAhrrlS ntarpcBuYL1cmVnrm/7klvRgB4/tdR2v/6F3++IO6/73H++EjUHY1ZncuL1UB8OqXcrOtbhZa X5dsin0UR9qbJVjzb8QyAgHOOAfdR5aBao9edVbpLfZsJVwFEX3kpMoNiwvPsyuf9b4dbNdcv As2ChM5KtzV9cv5gN6bIOB6aM+r0LJ1cjujc2dGt1vxTiM/B7Tq9cGqaeEjpZ8RONV3fcjKIQ H/W/bL0ldDd0o3Xt29LH49Qg3DcpTsdKd8gM9x8/2yv7fhDDT4kUY2puyt2+2yruyli3GSwWv L8ipXIEJ5U/xYIJ9mc1rMtcGMiIgjOCDvXlN12vWYZY3TQl9S81jqGXYIjvddEMgFS7aEjSB9 QX1viZo/JxrPJMYWvBKMnVd8hC/OvYPWp8umE3C0jog2p1GVC+JYP41XL+iuRve0LXn20Jplh spQ6D5QMo4gwRByKbSeSvyQrAutO1s8goCW+ImukdOj50rFaHL7LPB1T79tRH1QA64b3+ecom 1bEXa3rD0Prw2Fce
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.126.135; envelope-from=werner.baumann@onlinehome.de; helo=mout.kundenserver.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.750, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c1xs4-0001vx-1u a6afe07d06b5758ae8fc4f756aabe1a5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161102165359.4f837bdb@ginster>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32810
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>

Am Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:59:53 +0000
schrieb Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>:
> (Vaguely relatedly, Roy, your assertion that these implementations
> fail because “their developers can’t read” is one of the most grossly
> petty things I’ve read on this mailing list. Most of the
> implementations I’ve tested are open-source implementations that are
> maintained by one-to-two developers, part time. It turns out that the
> real world of implementing HTTP/1.1 is sufficiently complex that
> writing code to support a feature that has been used literally zero
> times prior to this moment was not high up the priority list of
> implementers. So it’s not that they "can’t read", it’s that they
> prioritised their work items to actually solve the problems their
> users have, and “being served unexpected 1XX status codes” wasn’t on
> that list. Clearly all us independent implementers are amateur-hour
> hacks with no business being on the web.)
> 
I am the only developer of a WebDAV-client (davfs2) and I did read the
spec.
My project makes use of the Neon library, developed by a single person
who did read the spec.
I don't spend a lot of time reading the specs. I spend a lot of time
writing workarounds for servers, who's implementers did not read the
spec. And a great deal of user support is about buggy servers that
conflict with the spec in an obvious way.

> Well, firstly, let me note that all currently-specced 1XX status codes
> *are* negotiated. While 100 Continue is allowed to be sent without an
> “Expect” header requesting it, in practice it never is, so user-agents
> that don’t send the “Expect" header will never see it. 

This needs a lot of twisting the word negotiation.
If I never send a valid GET-request I will never see a 200-response
with a resource in the body. So when sending a valid GET-request I
negotiate 200 OK?

The Expect-100 header does not tell the server that the client is able
and willing to handle 100 Continue responses. It tells the server that
the client will not send the body until it gets the OK from the server.
Using a protocol feature is not negotiating it.

Your argument sounds as if the preferred way to implement a protocol is
to revers engineer the protocol from what you see on the wire.