Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field
Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Mon, 02 February 2015 10:59 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 ED0581A00CA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 02:59:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 U0yhTMvJdH0U for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 02:58:59 -0800 (PST)
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 A8B971A00A9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 02:58:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YIEfR-0008UM-1L for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:55:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:55:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YIEfR-0008UM-1L@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YIEfM-0008TX-31 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:55:40 +0000
Received: from 121-99-228-82.static.orcon.net.nz ([121.99.228.82] helo=treenet.co.nz) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YIEfL-0001Sr-4b for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:55:40 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.25] (121-99-164-170.bng1.tvc.orcon.net.nz [121.99.164.170]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C18E6F05 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 23:55:06 +1300 (NZDT)
Message-ID: <54CF578A.3080002@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 23:55:06 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <54CCB62F.8050004@gmx.de> <EBFB3731-974E-44A5-A4A6-28413F2567A9@mnot.net> <54CF2DEE.7000101@gmx.de> <2F61F2B2-F6F6-4E7C-A4F8-A1045609E094@mnot.net> <54CF32C5.8010402@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <54CF32C5.8010402@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.439, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YIEfL-0001Sr-4b e272f5218e2d508d3999f2c19e0b5e8b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54CF578A.3080002@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28739
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 2/02/2015 9:18 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2015-02-02 09:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Yes, but the semantics of those headers are exactly the same in both >> directions. > > I think that's the case here, too. No? > Unless I am completely mis-reading it. In both directions, and for all status codes it means "I can receive encoding format(s) X,Y,Z". The rest of the draft is just elaboration and specific syntax. Yes? Amos
- draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto… Julian Reschke
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Mark Nottingham
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Julian Reschke
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Mark Nottingham
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Julian Reschke
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Amos Jeffries
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Julian Reschke
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Mark Nottingham
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Julian Reschke
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Mark Nottingham
- Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Tor… Julian Reschke