Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 02 July 2014 05:42 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 8FD451B28CE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 22:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 8dUsiwLS2_Rt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 22:42:25 -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 BE70C1B28D3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 22:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1X2DGs-0008FT-QM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 05:39:54 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 05:39:54 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1X2DGs-0008FT-QM@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 1X2DGp-0008Ek-G1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 05:39:51 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1X2DGo-0001RM-Kf for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 05:39:51 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.193.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D72F22E1F3; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 01:39:26 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <53AD3758.5060308@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 15:39:23 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E144312-DF69-4478-8E81-E173E79CE12A@mnot.net>
References: <EE32775B-21C2-43BC-AB4A-98E4534DA3BD@mnot.net> <53AD3758.5060308@gmx.de>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
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=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.044, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1X2DGo-0001RM-Kf de064407fe80c23a5ee611255a227eb6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0E144312-DF69-4478-8E81-E173E79CE12A@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/25025
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 27 Jun 2014, at 7:20 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2014-06-27 09:56, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/535> >> >> This seems like a re-opening of <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/264>. We discussed it a fair amount in the Seattle interim, and there was pretty strong support in the room for getting rid of 1xx status, especially since they're poorly supported in implementations, almost non-existant in APIs, and often don't survive hop-to-hop. >> >> Julian, anything to add? I'm inclined to close this as a duplicate unless there's significant new information... > > I still fail to see a compelling reason to remove them. > > Why do we keep trailers, but not 1xx? I'd like to understand how we draw the line. My .02 - trailers work in a way where they may not get used much, but some people still find them useful, and they don't cause significant issues. 1xx, OTOH, has a track record of causing considerable havoc, and as has been pointed out many times, its semantics are better expressed in the framing layer. That said, it's very much a judgement call. When we made that decision, we discussed it both in an interim and on the list: http://www.w3.org/mid/D630DC2F-1FBF-4824-AE5E-1CF81F65DD03@mnot.net ... and there was considerable support for -- and no pushback against -- doing it. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Michael Sweet
- #535: No 1xx Status Codes Mark Nottingham
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Julian Reschke
- RE: #535: No 1xx Status Codes K.Morgan
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Michael Sweet
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Julian Reschke
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Michael Sweet
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Mark Nottingham
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Julian Reschke
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Mark Nottingham
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Julian Reschke
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Mark Nottingham
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Julian Reschke
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Greg Wilkins
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Mark Nottingham
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Julian Reschke
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Greg Wilkins
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Willy Tarreau
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Willy Tarreau
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Amos Jeffries
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Greg Wilkins
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes Martin Thomson