IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 10 February 2015 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 0E31D1A0015 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:53:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 kpgBkZDPIPll for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:53:57 -0800 (PST)
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 6E7EE1A000F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:53:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YL4dy-00015M-0G for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:49:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:49:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YL4dy-00015M-0G@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1YL4dq-00014J-Mf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:49:50 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1YL4dp-0007pr-ET for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:49:50 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.175] ([84.187.54.137]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MKqOW-1YL4dK48X2-00012M; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:49:19 +0100
Message-ID: <54D9A9EA.8080202@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:49:14 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <54CCB62F.8050004@gmx.de> <EBFB3731-974E-44A5-A4A6-28413F2567A9@mnot.net> <54CF2DEE.7000101@gmx.de> <2F61F2B2-F6F6-4E7C-A4F8-A1045609E094@mnot.net> <54CF32C5.8010402@gmx.de> <A7FECD51-72EB-423C-AFEB-770F766684BB@mnot.net> <54D85D88.7020305@gmx.de> <729D31B3-1F51-4E3A-93C6-5429DC577595@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <729D31B3-1F51-4E3A-93C6-5429DC577595@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:YofuqMwTx25spUqN4ENv0zGJuje3c9Htzgfm9pDZ3SvLUu756WQ B4WfSQyV+0xvhUFFw855lMSlc+4skOWHrnX4wtExZTzf+bU3D6KLF4VyMNq8RUTzKvrdWHE di039ASQM9q7i7bnvhf9tkKim9d9/nUTXwjX1sLQsxboxmA6/F/89+oPmLrW/5YFwMTYGRB 91VxjjP+OS84QGRGR/csg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.243, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YL4dp-0007pr-ET 9e17c9bbea763a7422956178e652a241
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54D9A9EA.8080202@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28783
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 2015-02-10 01:17, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
>>> There are a number of subtle differences there, especially about the scope of applicability -- one of the most ill-defined areas in HTTP metadata.
>>
>> Anything besides the freshness issue?
>
> It's also a certainty issue -- if you send Accept-Encoding as a client, the server knows it can select one of those encodings, and doesn't have to worry about failure. If the server sends it and the client uses it, the client needs to be able to recover from failure gracefully.
>
> Let's flip it around -- what does reusing A-E buy us here? Are we trying to conserve registry space or something? :)

I think having "almost the same" functionality in two different header 
fields is confusing as well...

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status