Re: Early Hints (103)

Julian Reschke <> Wed, 23 November 2016 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55291293D8 for <>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:13:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UECOAcOd7Mc9 for <>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 481F812945B for <>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1c9TYU-00069J-41 for; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:09:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:09:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1c9TYO-00068D-C1 for; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:09:20 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1c9TYH-0004OA-9J for; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:09:15 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx001 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MZkv0-1cSe3O2OKc-00LZAq; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:08:44 +0100
To: Patrick McManus <>, HTTP Working Group <>
References: <>
From: Julian Reschke <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:08:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:eCfD3m6zjc7F+GzomS8ZiHYMM1MuIkX5skE0wsva/i0tlxAuJlI bq7XRlZ8o1gb3IQgJUlgn4QXGClpWfJKT5+KRzN0Idu0ZcC4Cg3ZTXCpsN2oAbgDQ7ny1VV 3fyGEvqTwxqNnWbErYGw3sTwCtbUJde7GRoyORGOvESuCV8a2Tou9/RpzM2buqmAxoZJ6jU Oryq/e4/OAfXLh1ECcS6Q==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:iiRdDpPhVz8=:1XTroEb8izneJGeIebqNja 8TfMzAp7Y1PhxAqxq7vgZeH/8rvrKGq8jM5Pws2NzNKWxGSYuC6ZwJhcjks0L/MV4fJYM8Yl/ /pY4zUp7MnwX+8wjpZt74DLpyfktgI2AvyBVHjbdVlUTzxkme5fWBiytJ9rker9/M5p13BrZB IHrLxDUfYlgcOIDlB2TjHWnplQ8soMC+Z8Xa4sJVWJdUzryQAuGqffAZb5yQc+MU3PDnw9KHc 4OPQvt7YK6cIymJXMuhQnpg0r66s7Te1IDoS9ZnShlrzlalplgGu4jgMcdbgjB+TLe86TgjNF 6ZsC254fvoyByciOGJqspkCQ4/qloG0Ur2K7FffitdsG4dtVOidXmoXFJs+ElUFc5AS6V3TeY Y+w2b7/4bC30JILLNLcAdMj4GhDIuUp1aGBCZt49qiNr1vtkcUCXcrqZuXO44I5TAQopJCP4d 7NeP373bZWTgOZsR4M9FS08tLY2fS2p9zfX0/HwqBcm1AsJpJXtxB5o0FebhSudKU5N4EB/fX 7xvvfRPNj0D9J4VkVdZoAiK0dm8R7u0ktEMSvX90Hw85hXryN4dOwW0G4D2mhNhHQNewVbaeP M2kaa0yxcBW3fqQDGp9BkHHXixucdf8AX1bhLmwSpn67gduxtoKD6O/Lt6XBlA58j42ET/fF4 G02G/xDns5Jk3gptr1VZiHSlF/mMAwj8sCY+nuh9yOyDhVDEfrgPezYLyoJEut2TpF2D2GrlH LncVtJ6USdF72mmuLbPTMdbSLpNRlMWUXv3JgTHfLv4kDoWN0QSxaNlJCEVC5WxyRk8OuHhTG Rkdcm6BE7SuZ+gcNzcGMS2LidTDcg==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.025, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1c9TYH-0004OA-9J 9052b2ca5e31f3140e0ae72ccb08579e
Subject: Re: Early Hints (103)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32969
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 2016-11-22 23:26, Patrick McManus wrote:
> Dear Gentlefolk of HTTPbis,
> This is a followup to Kazuho's presentation in Seoul[*] where he
> discussed
> The idea seemed to have acceptance (both in the room and on the list)
> with some concerns expressed about interoperability. Kazuho was kind
> enough to publish an endpoint so you can test if the client you
> implement has an unexpected failure in the face of 103.

...and the endpoint is <>.

> However, the draft was published pretty close to meeting time and there
> wasn't much space for discussion in the room. So before we do a Call For
> Adoption, I would like to hear some more discussion so the chairs can be
> confident there is interest - even if that discussion is "I would like
> to implement that" or "what does that accomplish?". Please do chime in,
> your silence will be taken for disinterest otherwise :).

I would like to work on improving implementations so that they can 
actually use it.

I think it's great to work on 103, and while doing that also improve the 
situation for 1xx in general. I already saw somebody else saying that 
they're looking into using RFC 2518's 102 Processing status as well 
(different use case, but same protocol level).

Best regards, Julian