IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 103 (Early Hints) vs. response headers

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 24 February 2017 00:16 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 0AC78129C98 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:16:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 RCzpEm-DUkFU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:16:31 -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 BBECD129C94 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ch3VX-0002rB-QY for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:13:11 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:13:11 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ch3VX-0002rB-QY@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1ch3VP-0002q9-97 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:13:03 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1ch3VJ-0007fn-1J for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:12:58 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66B7222E256; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:12:12 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALHHdhwQBfBN0Xz-4kxRJrJekiCLnro1i-MVw954wTRyOWAtvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:12:09 +1100
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E10BB6E0-3BD8-44EC-AE18-076D38077371@mnot.net>
References: <CALHHdhwQBfBN0Xz-4kxRJrJekiCLnro1i-MVw954wTRyOWAtvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.592, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1ch3VJ-0007fn-1J f43d8478cbde1a0d63263ae3cc9c7948
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 103 (Early Hints) vs. response headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E10BB6E0-3BD8-44EC-AE18-076D38077371@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33608
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>

My .02 -

> On 24 Feb 2017, at 2:27 am, Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>    HTTP/1.1 103 Early Hints
>    Link: </another-resource>; rel=preload
>    Warning: 299 - "something is not quite right"
> 
>    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>    Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:49:43 GMT
>    Content-Type: text/html
>    Link: </another-resource>; rel=preload
>    Connection: close
> 
>    ...text goes here...
> 
> Should it log/display the warning (as applied to the 103 response), or
> discard it (as missing from the 200 response)?
> 
> Should the spec for 103 be more explicit about this?

My reading is that "officially", the Warning is not in the response; the server thought something was wrong early in the process, but then realised it was fine. 

So, it MAY log/display the warning, but if it doesn't, it's still conformant.

Some more examples might help.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email