Re: Early Hints (103)

Cory Benfield <> Thu, 24 November 2016 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E12B129BDA for <>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:09:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lBxujKJTYEA for <>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:09:31 -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 0B473129A36 for <>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1c9xT8-00036z-Id for; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:05:54 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:05:54 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1c9xT1-0002z0-9o for; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:05:47 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1c9xSv-0007Oq-9j for; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:05:42 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id t79so67816452wmt.0 for <>; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:05:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5kAiWGORJ1tc+deCOjP1inq5CSCiTTwBc838RsCR48o=; b=hW9HzH+mfFjgt3Odx0AEwHIwWvknxBoe1HK4x916TF9TteUdeICTafRTdQPcnyHfy9 pzWa6kW8zL7YL6mE8yGUpdF75XcRiKohm+fk+w0Q0jGTLylga1HnBEU8+Oz9FU/uIsS8 AeD3jR76HIHoQvIH/NwbtEQYinEpAA5RMkDOpzE19Ul5zGbf9I0d5MhuY7F2auplBTXE iE8LTcNNJ2o72/5lRjT/thKkPEQr7nz5RgI7vtaMZk30faPrQ4BSRmmCLyhaJqQEEBTk WCWB5kezIVM48NAAGQtAd+mkWIKpftvUH2MiPsUGID1EvKGZqEWMvgR1H9oGQ7NwlIyN 9TrA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5kAiWGORJ1tc+deCOjP1inq5CSCiTTwBc838RsCR48o=; b=jnc8pf+oAEntcHuTHvIXkWiEcUFXUi0ERYuft6YioKUg2gYO6E7gnuAjFyjMaKj/n5 o3gD2YPWfoHEGGXUv8Df66a0uMW+LNzVcMLxY8ZyJSCXfRXSWFrW1yPheF8SP7j/4foL cdAqq1BII6hswiRAl268LNvJL8rih7YRq2kYgwu1q/E1qkL/bqE5EtIHbZloIKaibsh+ Y4Nfunf2ktR6xw4nlrfUhbze+TBBBFVoRhq8C3lx5pRwCGqvj/1Ot1Yuf1keTNHafw8B LnEl24C0qoleImdjWz/yhTxXA6adVMrQTZtkqSSCceDVr7koliFm0z6OWaohC04ZIPe6 sOYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02jqn32vigycoskIo5o8BUY/JFBaCvrjSWVsE6ec8H+TRuCtKNUS/KDTAtRogT8Aw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s196mr3192875wmb.1.1480007114031; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id w8sm9125578wmw.4.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3256\))
From: Cory Benfield <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:05:10 +0000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Patrick McManus <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3256)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.092, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1c9xSv-0007Oq-9j c373f48944e3857b5062b9ca3d607e8c
Subject: Re: Early Hints (103)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32997
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

> On 22 Nov 2016, at 22:26, Patrick McManus <> wrote:
> 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 have no immediate intent to implement, but this is only due to limitations or constraints on the clients and servers I work on. I doubt any of my clients will implement Link header following directly because it’s of limited utility in programmatic clients. However, I intend for all my clients to tolerate such headers. On the server side the server I work on most right now has no support for returning headers before body computation, but I will investigate whether there is interest in providing such support. If there is, I will implement 103.

At a higher level, I’m +1 on this idea: I think it’s a good solution that uses established protocol tools to solve a very real problem.