Return-Path: 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 E03901A1B69 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:51:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.289 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Z9AKm72AUz7A for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:51:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 BAED61A1B64 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YbgmP-0001Pw-ND for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:47:21 +0000 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:47:21 +0000 Resent-Message-Id: Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YbgmE-0001P6-U6 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:47:10 +0000 Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YbgmC-0002de-Kd for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:47:10 +0000 Received: by oifl3 with SMTP id l3so90837460oif.0 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:46:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7FMg5acbwCESNsJ8SHiELRQZed10KDNUp5ZMWAedQq0=; b=eyOE+TlCUrfjM9DNitXWoZymUqkTq1JGikXVrihC5b2thvHh2hFV1mVbjr4tJC021s tXermEszXvnXdVz2PEkb9skOaANgBAK2LtMFPvuPzTc/12iQ577qkYgzZvum9s+BcI4z y3D6YFONwssAB3aOWFrqI14Rmm9IooCMtZUjkPWqpXZgYfsJW+u3dYPqZBN/4nl9C+MN DQpBMxcXYebONyzlIbIsZZAALW0MBFKtHh6NQECda9oWbeBMcZe4vUCQ7e4jXSR/R2J8 IDVM/uy+6egSwJmO66rScD4ItL+aGi4Idhw7YZByg2mFFJUqNXEEY1WsCM2e8nRR5cUc Sx4g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.236.196 with SMTP id uw4mr18506989obc.41.1427510802650; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: phluid61@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.178.3 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:46:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5515D627.1000106@brendanlong.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:46:42 +1000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ID9d77JIaaqH8s0FRTnLNzvpU1U Message-ID: From: Matthew Kerwin To: Martin Thomson Cc: Brendan Long , HTTP Working Group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c300ee4e1d7e05125042aa Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.218.43; envelope-from=phluid61@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f43.google.com X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.728, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1 X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YbgmC-0002de-Kd 03111e7c433e1dfbb2b6997eee537ae7 X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: "Timeout" request header to tell server to wait for resource to become available Archived-At: Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/29044 X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: --001a11c300ee4e1d7e05125042aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 28 March 2015 at 11:46, Martin Thomson wrote: > > I believe that what you want is accomplished by RFC 7240: > > Prefer: wait=3D5 > > The units are perhaps suboptimal for your use case (seconds instead of > milliseconds), but we might be able to make a change to support finer > grained timing. > > Incidentally, I've just found an erratum in RFC 7240: Section 1.1 says that "delta-seconds" is defined in Section 8.1.3 of [RFC7231], but it's actually in RFC 7234, Section-1.2.1. =E2=80=8BI'll report it. Regarding extending/modifying the header to accept sub-second timings, how would current implementations treat: Prefer: wait=3D0.2 ? It doesn't fit the syntax, so would it be ignored outright (as an unrecognised header) most of the time? Cheers --=20 Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/ --001a11c300ee4e1d7e05125042aa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 28 March 2015 at 11:46, Martin Thomson <marti= n.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

I believe that what you want is accomplished by RFC 7240:

Prefer: wait=3D5

The units are perhaps suboptimal for your use case (seconds instead of
milliseconds), but we might be able to make a change to support finer
grained timing.


Incidental= ly, I've just found an erratum in RFC 7240: Section 1.1 says that "= ;delta-seconds" is defined in Section 8.1.3 of [RFC7231], but it's= actually in=C2=A0RFC 7234, Section-1.2.1. =E2=80=8BI'll report it.

Regarding extending/modifying the header to a= ccept sub-second timings, how would current implementations treat:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Prefer: wait=3D0.2
<= br>
? It doesn't fit the syntax, so would it be ignored o= utright (as an unrecognised header) most of the time?

Cheers
--
=C2=A0 Matthew Kerwin
=C2=A0 http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
--001a11c300ee4e1d7e05125042aa--