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> Mon, 02 February 2015 11:05 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 325FC1A00D4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 03:05:26 -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 Atk8BLKFbviH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 03:05:22 -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 CF3ED1A00DF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 03:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YIEmR-0005yY-MM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:02:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:02:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YIEmR-0005yY-MM@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 1YIEmN-0005xr-3e for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:02:55 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) 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 1YIEmM-0001kH-86 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:02:55 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.26] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MVvDo-1YBZrk0AHo-00X81V; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 12:02:24 +0100
Message-ID: <54CF5932.5090503@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 12:02:10 +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: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, 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> <54CF578A.3080002@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <54CF578A.3080002@treenet.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:9U/3hKV7K+AEDH2mQiu941Z3re+uqNNA3s1t8lU0ZzxdHLA0tnd EHd7j3p2sqvejyO7HyIIl+28hmrLB3IXe/oMROIF2ZS9KADMM+Xz53BIe9egndLOQF9Vsj3 uYa8diCkH0E6IDe8j7pcMMrGZAjA+JQ0SaiFAH1wAt+10bbWVHIx3IZrtDZWJMjH/PO5Ly/ Wn60FiTnGYQzm5b8v9DLQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.394, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YIEmM-0001kH-86 a7fee6a742a3b83cd1eb5a08df20bbfa
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/54CF5932.5090503@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28740
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 2015-02-02 11:55, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 2/02/2015 9:18 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2015-02-02 09:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Yes, but the semantics of those headers are exactly the same in both
>>> directions.
>>
>> I think that's the case here, too. No?
>>
>
> Unless I am completely mis-reading it.
>
> In both directions, and for all status codes it means "I can receive
> encoding format(s) X,Y,Z". The rest of the draft is just elaboration and
> specific syntax. Yes?

Yes. If we had done this in RFC 7231, it would have been something like 
5 additional lines.

Best regards, Julian

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