Re: Early Hints (103)

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Wed, 07 December 2016 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E50129629 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 18:28:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 iX3WQPaTRvc5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 18:28:42 -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 C71CC129408 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 18:28:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cERvE-0000dq-Sx for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2016 02:25:28 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 02:25:28 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cERvE-0000dq-Sx@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1cERv4-0000cZ-A3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2016 02:25:18 +0000
Received: from [121.99.228.82] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1cERux-00065D-CN for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2016 02:25:13 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.251] (unknown [121.98.41.216]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A0BE6EDB for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:24:33 +1300 (NZDT)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CAOdDvNos+qXxi8K3HPtkuzkAuc1ctAmdt=Oz+vJy+oBgB7skQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Message-ID: <834d98fb-ee08-5d30-8793-fb751bdb2496@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:24:32 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNos+qXxi8K3HPtkuzkAuc1ctAmdt=Oz+vJy+oBgB7skQA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.204, BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cERux-00065D-CN 514a88852564e3cdc96ca4e97cd3bb87
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Early Hints (103)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/834d98fb-ee08-5d30-8793-fb751bdb2496@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33122
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 23/11/2016 11:26 a.m., Patrick McManus wrote:
> Dear Gentlefolk of HTTPbis,
> 
> This is a followup to Kazuho's presentation in Seoul[*] where he discussed
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code/
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 :).
> 

Noting, adoption support from Squid Project.

Amos