IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03.txt> (An HTTP Status Code for Indicating Hints) to Experimental RFC

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 25 June 2017 10:53 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 B1AEB127058 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 03:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
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=unavailable 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 cDwe-fGUdHVv for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 03:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D02E126DFF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 03:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1dP58m-0003GC-IH for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 10:51:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 10:51:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1dP58m-0003GC-IH@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1dP58f-0003FB-0e for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 10:51:33 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1dP58Y-0005Du-Ux for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 10:51:27 +0000
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.96.65]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lta9E-1doLEa2Auy-010rSI; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 12:50:32 +0200
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com
References: <149806437201.15854.12299810594896460001.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <dcdff226-e12d-bb83-982f-8253f46ae935@gmx.de> <20170625104629.GA29021@1wt.eu>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <602955e2-cfd0-e4c8-7afa-e8f3ea78ab3a@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 12:50:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170625104629.GA29021@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:31ijMgdYwwjg8fzeF/nP/v1yKATGlffrDC5ytyGrNVQLK+ht+uW p2TQ2fCROgxMeDcIy13i+RpAmpql8EiU5AdWVbJjEiNTSUSt0VFzmY6vg+4dCMtC1ya0hZ1 ycU+ubfo9DRbSuvOId7w/kqlMNBlM0rFfDyOeWjA/3Vtp1FUzElERP5VW5UpG9hb8VqJ0yS DYeIpNYLVeCl+CURekytg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:vbGrI08fw90=:GYG8/qV+8qsHl3yz7Qee9/ tjMvcJf/GOUemm9HXT98wTSwkCzoYBqNgCYZelGEcVqXYPvYACMTCMX3QKgFC57JtdIyqkOkG o64UADOZiG6jErbr4GtLrckBGRHcl2SS/gi91iZtpX1f6uTducTxywCTusd4+JzkkpVd42RQ+ Y3OkYS6qLdLALe4Agbo/VjTLGo9Kz6kngkhOvoTClwZOfaIGzImE8tN7RhOezfjBHkPiaBOhC Rit4ZIw6B46zyuT76n/zFpGVK49rDdn7gM6QJuvQP5Z8k6ScMixIqh2g2rshG5JFypl8o1xBL nEZh/3S5grWdMhwcKVttmJpq2JIaWUVfJzkD5FNim6g4VRFq/fTXEVJLl3daIIOsfHoGIDN3k VsWf0YfRkjQu3omtI9mIPpHKDCPRpS63RwYbT58JFPZNPAUknVH/W+W/sTWE1UO1i3Ze9D/wJ lafR3GMU8f1uUAJC0Wml7Q8vwUQpYxF1WScY6NK9aocAFv09nfTG+w8EVh75uXKcCrisH48IG NqqeCx0YmYg2YP+EuEYmDB5mVcGR1dzjCFCeCig2aIEYZ33jR09XMwKuYnPoAlAZbZruZ688k J6QYv+E9oNScGIUaXRVQX7ZTud1v6IT9sxF0VCTyD9sXG49R5DRqssMx/8XAl4rvZfIHfLIOz wvstUN46AX8ovIatzR98LhxJRHooVQwpU28tb987VUs8Jp/GonYPsJE3J/bwWGlhcy/1ngACK Aq6dCspmMidm8rKiHZFknQhLvAeAwmK2xupwzHEoo5S+VD4Rif1LEpWSR/6qPozPPCNjIutO1 /1tdcjg
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.068, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1dP58Y-0005Du-Ux 29fc3bd5262b9497d639666e81237b43
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03.txt> (An HTTP Status Code for Indicating Hints) to Experimental RFC
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/602955e2-cfd0-e4c8-7afa-e8f3ea78ab3a@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/34006
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 2017-06-25 12:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> 
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:11:29PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>     An intermediary MAY drop the informational response. (...)
>>
>> That seems to contradict a MUST-level requirement in RFC 7231
>> (https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#rfc.section.6.2.p.3)
> 
> Not completely. An intermediary not aware of 103 may map it to 100. If

It may do so, but it's not allowed to (IMHO).

> the intermediary inserted an "Expect: 100 continue" header field, we
> can reasonably imagine that such an intermediary might also drop the
> returning 103. This wording in 7231 may even encourage some implementations
> to do so : "A proxy MUST forward 1xx responses unless the proxy itself
> requested the generation of the 1xx response". Speaking about 1xx here
> may be read as "I asked for 100, I'm receiving 1xx so that matches".

But that sounds like a bug in the proxy to me. A 103 is not a 100.

>>     Server response:
>>
>>       HTTP/1.1 103 Early Hints
>>       Link: </style.css>; rel=preload; as=style
>>       Link: </script.js>; rel=preload; as=script
>>
>>       HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>       Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:02:11 GMT
>>       Content-Length: 1234
>>       Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
>>       Link: </style.css>; rel=preload; as=style
>>       Link: </script.js>; rel=preload; as=script
>>
>>       <!doctype html>
>>       [... rest of the response body is ommitted from the example ...]
>>
>> The example suggests that early hints are repeated in the final response. Do
>> they have to, actually?
> 
> If we imagine that clients ignore 103 or that intermediaries occasionally
> drop it, I think it's desirable to send them. Said differently, the 103
> response prepends a copy of the Link header fields that the final response
> is supposed to present to help the client fetch them earlier.
> ...

Understood. But is this a requirement or just a suggestion? Does a 
client need to forget the information from the 103 when it's not 
repeated in the final response?

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email