p2: Considerations for new headers

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 24 April 2013 08:05 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681FF21F8E46 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qbjz8+gDTwsw for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568C421F8DBB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUugl-00082A-GZ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:04:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:04:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUugl-00082A-GZ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UUugh-00081P-Cb for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:04:23 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UUuft-0005Ki-4R for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:03:45 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A39250A87 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:03:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B191C287-C71F-424A-9270-BF84D118E423@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:03:07 +1000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.379, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UUuft-0005Ki-4R 065ecf27e7bda4fe9185de6804caa4d8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: p2: Considerations for new headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/B191C287-C71F-424A-9270-BF84D118E423@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17530
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>

We should consider adding the following to the laundry list of considerations in p2 8.3.1:

* Whether the field should be stored by origin servers that understand it upon a PUT request.

Furthermore, I think we should change:

* How the header field might interact with caching (see [Part6]).

to:

* When the header is used in requests and affects response selection [ref], it is good practice to advise listing that header in the Vary response header [ref].

Finally, we should add (near the top of the section):

"""
New header fields cannot change the semantics of a message in an incompatible fashion. That is, it is not possible to require recipients to understand a header field through its mere presence. However, new methods and status codes can require the presence of headers in their definitions, in the scope of the message they occur within. 
"""

Make sense?


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