IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 103 (Early Hints) vs. response headers

Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Wed, 15 March 2017 03:06 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 B3DBD129A08 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 g9RVgCRukhXR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
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 40A2C129874 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cnzDx-000425-Ce for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 03:03:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 03:03:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cnzDx-000425-Ce@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 <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1cnzDi-00041G-EX for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 03:03:26 +0000
Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1cnzDc-0003Cy-AC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 03:03:21 +0000
Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v190so2531831pfb.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ENe0se4ovEU0CexaRm1/fOHXNThWy0WaU+w9Xd/BhRY=; b=G7LXeDs9Z9npD3/lXl2eN5jCPGHiGmn0Xv02u8/DbnzxtU+Dnz5M+8hTdrVGySOmuk O2ca0d+n2xRX6/oRQiC/nqTJD5gQGlYSrxqiqqRCZ6Szx2PfT1vPg+26gkzkN6U9UfTb HddwP3ZGrU2RGKmCVxi85gyP4PEzFa6PUeUObnAkaZ4lY4k59fR9jJwJnUeOTYrMzSbi eHJZdlUyFrzFmCv3iS/Bw96qwjaeIgvRuMdX/ADxZBE/dCGUUp+0zs6nLRHauBDNOMyX iT56OriuR6NrwY4P9myzSo16fGudMg+59ybAh3Km7j0peQyad28WJnM6KVF15KhVLOWJ gW9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ENe0se4ovEU0CexaRm1/fOHXNThWy0WaU+w9Xd/BhRY=; b=bNRrVgTVoGmOT3GbQoAWMMbcFNJchGH+Oim2vCYV8gvhB7HsblAnu/831f0Ivr0g8n KG/2h5c3v38iLAJep2CDhyN7/JfhjjDemSFQr3DMZNaa7CRzUhEWryw1xBiv7BThpRTI iQguFF3Y21kmDyiHIKm6h+klJlV7UOzPdAdMnUJKYv2aaNt7QCpXwn1chW50/CsvL38y BDZqdxz2CKPxAXEHfvoDCtO8YTdP3E6/bQYRVjwVHSEuLo+c6poSFzWp/NvThrFFUPfC XQ92UYqMI+7CJ9mDUZWzopKpM7fC+eJm29N9MrDfZViwTNlUbX4fFmxqRhoKQGFGPT3W WhYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3+bNxBxTfS46vBPGll5TXGw1oxdJVQWTNJErNsru3bWpUYEDDJMI3W058F5CXn2g1OJKuEPTURtg0W4g==
X-Received: by 10.99.149.6 with SMTP id p6mr1055683pgd.122.1489546973834; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.149.13 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E10BB6E0-3BD8-44EC-AE18-076D38077371@mnot.net>
References: <CALHHdhwQBfBN0Xz-4kxRJrJekiCLnro1i-MVw954wTRyOWAtvw@mail.gmail.com> <E10BB6E0-3BD8-44EC-AE18-076D38077371@mnot.net>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:02:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzxS7Z9U5Jr2N_EeyY5NUrZ-weuGsetuUQdLWGGOQKVLNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.192.172; envelope-from=kazuhooku@gmail.com; helo=mail-pf0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.231, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cnzDc-0003Cy-AC 8b4409f8fcd5aceb1d0c7288c9780888
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 103 (Early Hints) vs. response headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CANatvzxS7Z9U5Jr2N_EeyY5NUrZ-weuGsetuUQdLWGGOQKVLNw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33726
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>

2017-02-24 9:12 GMT+09:00 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:
> My .02 -
>
>> On 24 Feb 2017, at 2:27 am, Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>    HTTP/1.1 103 Early Hints
>>    Link: </another-resource>; rel=preload
>>    Warning: 299 - "something is not quite right"
>>
>>    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>    Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:49:43 GMT
>>    Content-Type: text/html
>>    Link: </another-resource>; rel=preload
>>    Connection: close
>>
>>    ...text goes here...
>>
>> Should it log/display the warning (as applied to the 103 response), or
>> discard it (as missing from the 200 response)?
>>
>> Should the spec for 103 be more explicit about this?
>
> My reading is that "officially", the Warning is not in the response; the server thought something was wrong early in the process, but then realised it was fine.
>
> So, it MAY log/display the warning, but if it doesn't, it's still conformant.
>
> Some more examples might help.

RFC 6265 states that a user agent "MAY ignore Set-Cookie headers
contained in responses with 100-level status codes".

So to me it seems that if we state in Early Hints that the headers of
a 103 response is ones that are applied (speculatively) to the final
response but not the informational response itself, then we'd be
overriding RFC 6265.

> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>



-- 
Kazuho Oku

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email