Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Thu, 04 September 2014 12:40 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 6017B1A00D2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 05:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.37
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_81=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 UikCyl169HbE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 05:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BB901A8884 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XPWHm-00043m-Do for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:37:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:37:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XPWHm-00043m-Do@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <sandro@w3.org>) id 1XPWHP-0002tW-HD for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:36:47 +0000
Received: from jay.w3.org ([128.30.52.169]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <sandro@w3.org>) id 1XPWHO-0006kh-0N; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:36:47 +0000
Received: from pool-74-104-152-28.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([74.104.152.28] helo=[192.168.1.14]) by jay.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <sandro@w3.org>) id 1XPWHN-0008WK-9p; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:36:45 -0400
Message-ID: <54085CD5.1030100@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:36:37 -0400
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <20140630160817.19583.68135.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53B1A11E.7070206@gmx.de> <20140826001105.GA21557@w3.org> <5BCBFA0D-7EC5-4702-A8CA-FAB4F39191B5@mnot.net> <20140902150007.GD16140@w3.org> <74B70844-B187-46F2-B953-8212FDB6151A@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <74B70844-B187-46F2-B953-8212FDB6151A@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, AWL=-3.143, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.65
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XPWHO-0006kh-0N a5fc26876646aea6c69bc83b7d6e5eda
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54085CD5.1030100@w3.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26941
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 09/04/2014 07:46 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 2 Sep 2014, at 6:00 pm, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: > >> Sorry for the delayed response; moving house. Will try to be more >> attentive now. >> >> * Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> [2014-08-26 12:20+1000] >>> Eric, >>> >>> We’re happy to discuss it here, but can’t commit to a schedule before that discussion has begun. >>> >>> For my part, I’m still not sure what the difference between the proposed status code is from 200 + Content-Location. >> I think there are two ways this discussion could go: >> >> We could ask questions like "Is /Index?page=1 a representation of >> /Index ?" and "What is the subject of the metadata in a 200+CL, the >> effective request URI or the CL?" The end result of these is that we >> evaluate the use cases for 303. >> >> Another is that we say 303's exist and people use them and want to >> streamline their use. I believe that any approach to do so will find >> some way to say that the metadata in the response is about the target >> of the redirect. Is there a more graceful way to do that than 2NN? > Eric, > > You haven’t answered the question; you’ve speculated on two different ways that the question might be answered. > > Choose. > Eric just meant there are multiple reasons for doing this, that is, multiple correct answers. I think his phrasing was intended to let you pick which one you wanted to dig into (and perhaps try to refute) first. Personally, I think the first argument is stronger, so it would save time to consider it first. -- Sandro > > >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:11 am, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I understand people are busy, but is there a chance we can move forward >>>> on this? The subject has been extensively discussed on >>>> www-tag (as detailed below). The June I-D is at: >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2nn-00 >>>> >>>> Technical Summary: >>>> [[ >>>> 2NN provides a shorcut the GET X->303 Location:Y, GET Y->200 pattern. >>>> For responses where the server would have responded with a Location >>>> header, it can instead respond with the payload of a notional GET on >>>> that location. The notional GET has all of the headers of the original >>>> request. This defines the behavior for conneg, Vary headers, caching, >>>> etc. >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> There's a fairly thorough summary in the TAG's draft review: >>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/blob/master/2014/04/http-209.md >>>> The issues in that document have been addressed in the I-D, but it >>>> does contain motivation for 2NN (especially with respect to Server >>>> Push). >>>> >>>> The urgency here is that the W3C Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working >>>> Group, which first surfaced the need for this, will be ready to issue >>>> its formal "Call for Implementations" in mid-September. At that >>>> point, people outside the LDP Working Group will begin writing code >>>> that uses this response code. >>>> >>>> I understand there may still be some concerns. In the next few weeks, >>>> we'd like to try to address them or resolve that they are truly >>>> insurmountable. Is that reasonable? >>>> >>>> I went throught the www-tag archives and added my own summary, >>>> underneath, for each message: >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> A new HTTP response code say 209 Dec 19 Tim Berners-Lee >>>> │ use case for a 209 >>>> ├─>Re: A new HTTP response code say 209 Dec 19 Daniel Appelquist >>>> │ London f2f logistics >>>> ├─>Re: A new HTTP response code say 209 Dec 19 Julian Reschke >>>> │ │ 299 as placeholder >>>> │ │ why not 303 or 202? >>>> │ └─> Dec 20 Tim Berners-Lee >>>> │ payload conflict of 303 >>>> │ 202 for asynchronous >>>> │ 303 fine logically but requires round trip >>>> ├─>Re: A new HTTP response code say 209 Dec 20 Mark Nottingham >>>> │ │ use media type instead? >>>> │ │ HTTPbis 8.2.2. Considerations for New Status Codes >>>> │ └─> Jan 09 Henry Story >>>> │ │ media types describe representation, not resource >>>> │ ├─> Jan 09 Henry S. Thompson >>>> │ │ │ define in terms of 303+200 >>>> │ │ ├─> Jan 09 Henry Story >>>> │ │ │ │ +1 but propose 3xx instead of 2xx >>>> │ │ │ └─> Jan 09 David Sheets >>>> │ │ │ │ respond with message/http >>>> │ │ │ ├─> Jan 09 David Booth >>>> │ │ │ │ │ broaden 209 to cover 300, 301, 302 and 307 >>>> │ │ │ │ └─> Jan 09 David Booth >>>> │ │ │ │ or 300, 301, 302 or 307 + multipart body >>>> │ │ │ └─> Feb 13 Reto Gmür >>>> │ │ │ confuses clients interpreting 2xx as 200 >>>> │ │ │ could work in 303 >>>> │ │ ├─>Fwd: A new HTTP response code say 209 Jan 09 Jonathan A Reese >>>> │ │ │ no evidence that 200 has intended semantics in practice >>>> │ │ └─> Jan 09 Julian Reschke >>>> │ │ │ use 3xx code. 2xx response would apply to request-URI >>>> │ │ └─> Jan 09 Henry S. Thompson >>>> │ │ │ Content-location understood wrt conneg >>>> │ │ └─> Jan 09 Julian Reschke >>>> │ │ │ says there's a more specific URI >>>> │ │ └─> Feb 10 Ashok Malhotra >>>> │ │ │ Arwe: propose: 303 + Prefer: return=representation >>>> │ │ └─> Feb 13 Yves Lafon >>>> │ │ dangerous, changes 303, would need Vary: Prefer. 2xx more applicable >>>> │ └─> Jan 09 Julian Reschke >>>> │ wording of 303 >>>> ├─>Re: A new HTTP response code say 209 Dec 19 Jonathan A Reese >>>> │ note http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/urls-in-data-2013-04-27/ >>>> └─>draft of Feb 24 Eric Prud'hommeaux >>>> │ draft <http://localhost/2014/02/2xx/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-209> >>>> ├─>Re: draft of 209 proposal Feb 24 David Booth >>>> │ │ URL correction >>>> │ └─> Feb 24 Eric Prud'hommeaux >>>> │ │ ack >>>> │ └─> Mar 17 Julian Reschke >>>> │ │ Conflates "see elsewhere" with "too large", how can client know which applies >>>> │ └─> Mar 17 Eric Prud'hommeaux >>>> │ all that HTTP cares is that the client requested X and got something other than X >>>> └─> Mar 07 Mark Nottingham >>>> │ why is 209 better than 200 with Content-Location for e.g. POST->303 and GET->303? >>>> │ partial feeds is addressed in RFC5005 >>>> │ how does HTTP software behave differently? >>>> ├─> Mar 07 Julian Reschke >>>> │ offer to help submit I-D >>>> ├─> Mar 07 Eric Prud'hommeaux >>>> │ │ GET->303 requires a round trip >>>> │ │ RFC5005 re-uses URL for a page of resource. requires syndication format (Atom) >>>> │ │ ack, same-origin constraint insufficient for shared caches >>>> │ ├─> Mar 08 Julian Reschke >>>> │ │ submit I-D via http://www.ietf.org/id-info/ >>>> │ ├─> Mar 08 Jeni Tennison >>>> │ │ TAGs use of URLs http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ includes 303s >>>> │ └─> Mar 13 Mark Nottingham >>>> │ │ not really a redirect so 200 with Content-Location should suffice >>>> │ │ RFC5005 doesn't require URL re-use >>>> │ │ why not embed paging info in served representations? >>>> │ ├─> Mar 13 Jonathan A Rees >>>> │ │ │ Content-Location is a representation of requested resource >>>> │ │ ├─> Mar 16 Mark Nottingham >>>> │ │ │ │ more details [on why Content-Location won't suffice] >>>> │ │ │ └─> Mar 15 Jonathan A Rees >>>> │ │ │ [discussion of non-information resources] >>>> │ │ └─> Mar 17 Julian Reschke >>>> │ │ │ is it OK that naive clients will treat 209 as 200? >>>> │ │ └─> Mar 17 Eric Prud'hommeaux >>>> │ │ small survey examining behavior of such clients >>>> │ └─> Mar 15 Eric Prud'hommeaux >>>> │ │ example differentiating page of resource from representation of resource >>>> │ └─> Mar 16 Mark Nottingham >>>> │ HTTP doesn't enable one representation to make an authoritative assertion about another >>>> └─> Mar 07 Sandro Hawke >>>> │ propose same-origin requirements for trusting 209 response >>>> └─> Mar 07 Eric Prud'hommeaux >>>> there are apparently different security reqs for client vs. proxies >>>> proxies may not be content with same-origin, client proxies likely more liberal >>>> >>>> I believe Mark Nottingham remains concerned that 2NN's assertion about >>>> the representation of the Location resource is counter to HTTP. The >>>> Linked Data Platform's paging spec presumes that clients will take >>>> advantage of the improved efficiency. >>>> -- >>>> -ericP >>>> >>>> >>>> * Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> [2014-06-30 19:40+0200] >>>>> (FYI) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2nn-00.txt >>>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:08:17 -0700 >>>>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >>>>> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org >>>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >>>>> X-ArchivedAt: http://www.w3.org/mid/53B1A11E.7070206@gmx.de >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>>> directories. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Title : The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) >>>>> Status Code 2NN (Contents of Related) >>>>> Author : Eric G. Prud'hommeaux >>>>> Filename : draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2nn-00.txt >>>>> Pages : 9 >>>>> Date : 2014-06-30 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> This document specifies the additional HyperText Transfer Protocol >>>>> (HTTP) Status Code 2NN (Contents of Related). It also specified a >>>>> Prefer header value "contents-of-related" which clients can use to >>>>> indicate that they can accept 2NN responses. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2nn/ >>>>> >>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2nn-00 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>>> >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> I-D-Announce mailing list >>>>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> -ericP >>>> >>>> office: +1.617.599.3509 >>>> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 >>>> >>>> (eric@w3.org) >>>> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than >>>> email address distribution. >>>> >>>> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout >>>> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper. >>>> >>> -- >>> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> -ericP >> >> office: +1.617.599.3509 >> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 >> >> (eric@w3.org) >> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than >> email address distribution. >> >> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout >> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper. > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > >
- Fwd: I-D Action: draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2… Julian Reschke
- 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Eric Prud'hommeaux
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Martin Thomson
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Mark Nottingham
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Eric Prud'hommeaux
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Eric Prud'hommeaux
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Mark Nottingham
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Sandro Hawke
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Martin Thomson
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Sandro Hawke
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Roy T. Fielding
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Sandro Hawke
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Julian Reschke
- See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Conten… Julian Reschke
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Co… Yves Lafon
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Yves Lafon
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Co… Julian Reschke
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Julian Reschke
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Co… Mark Nottingham
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Co… Sandro Hawke
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Co… Eric Prud'hommeaux
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Roy T. Fielding
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut) Eric Prud'hommeaux
- 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (… Sandro Hawke
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Relat… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Relat… Sandro Hawke
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Relat… Amos Jeffries
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Relat… Sandro Hawke
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Relat… Julian Reschke
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Relat… Sandro Hawke
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Relat… Sandro Hawke
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Relat… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Relat… Julian Reschke