Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP-Date

Philipp Junghannß <teamhydro55555@gmail.com> Tue, 06 August 2019 19:02 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 561EA12013C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 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=0.201, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-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 aod2uNWiq4BM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 796A21200A3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hv4hD-00014N-Eu for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 19:00:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 19:00:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hv4hD-00014N-Eu@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4c]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <teamhydro55555@gmail.com>) id 1hv4hA-0000e2-Dd for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 19:00:28 +0000
Received: from mail-ot1-x332.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <teamhydro55555@gmail.com>) id 1hv4h8-0002UC-Ro for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 19:00:28 +0000
Received: by mail-ot1-x332.google.com with SMTP id q20so95049512otl.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 12:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7SyNahlg9hKZK6USXWwLdGTZJuttw/kgBYtN6P6/ffM=; b=qAdjILTCTLuRap/y5ieiMd1W1IQ67xlbLJDkd6QZk539axfnxG7+GTNJKl7gSSNy1L OgOYdS5w7KTAc4FYjaVv4hIZpnD2p/S9XPrVblKWoGCmiL4HwounmP08FZs7gSil8Egc 7Q0cVn8ZyXY/9tiTLecyFqClUFmO01eJq0AW7BsAsUr4XpgGutZ/VG79f9fSglIGoa98 3UgSwn6dTc/5ZeNBSHOgtCc0bp4XRRbt/FbQ92yZhDlQrStLr0/ocRwluAluPF587Kfw ZGH5dTCYlDH8x/6/xJLdoQ5tsFezLiPiyQje6XwP3mFNojQ054PIaOWg3Q3od+R88VtC 2HDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7SyNahlg9hKZK6USXWwLdGTZJuttw/kgBYtN6P6/ffM=; b=SZhBpIn3ewCTZkR77OPdaFNGf+ihDUD3wf7t77QZMLJobGw1BnYnHzeNy8EoC0aoFu lp19M8TPdpdJ5gdV3xkoFVjXpWxX57JnMHtYOjbX1FOO+/j1zhqOXXNdYtjC0YmqANEB MrrbXgdR68UtlKUUAJlQXGFhMevIajoTdVjpvQj8+lYQknr7buhCg68t5pLxffqbJoq4 Qg+wJrJ54or/dmx17bWSYpKKJEzt6TgysFvXbPwtRgq0nqe9LkBnF7SG436Z7rqJaeqq Vr3tjtUa1F84opM3i1yoNXmW7zKbC9W8MrdUhySFRMFZFUFjbrI4J0GFfGZgoA/1f60b puJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWyYA0hkFhjbj59tRAH0akt3NOsKLafpqIl+cSXvGc9tVUbWuPL qV6uGTCG+1FZZyFC8KKGK9bHOOHOzpFlce2S/HQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyMZdg8C8fKiHI+4pfE5nUhXbWAlXJ+0Zdl02gP0BoScp3fT4KDxMrZsxn/HYINcPUkwKL6X+6zUmtcGVGvtuM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1042:: with SMTP id b2mr4605374otp.345.1565118005087; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 12:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP9qbHXfX9Y7OjfP3gEtxCtDkd1nZwe7B9CK5FY_OeKf1BQX4A@mail.gmail.com> <716beea3-d7f7-4911-18bc-a23fd6b382fc@treenet.co.nz> <CACHSkNqBCvegNCW5-cQPt93M-_RCp+2Cw+grPMn9Kz2jgrPi+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD3-0rMY=+HD=d5cW6=-aa3tsV4oXnU39ArDO18XjhWJvQ3Gug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD3-0rMY=+HD=d5cW6=-aa3tsV4oXnU39ArDO18XjhWJvQ3Gug@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philipp_Junghann=C3=9F?= <teamhydro55555@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:59:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CACHSkNo+P-43nx4TrGtgiz8QwQx5545=vutTxqKqjKKQV_MgKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b99419058f776eae"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::332; envelope-from=teamhydro55555@gmail.com; helo=mail-ot1-x332.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1hv4h8-0002UC-Ro 537bc1eefa581cb013e965b20dfdd495
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Retry-After in UNIX Timestamp instead of HTTP-Date
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACHSkNo+P-43nx4TrGtgiz8QwQx5545=vutTxqKqjKKQV_MgKA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36937
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

interesting Idea also the advantage over the unixtime is that you dont get
to deal with the Year 2038 problem later if we are still having to deal
with systems too old/weird/whatever for 64 bit times

with one very small exception. a system which is unaware of the fault doing
a request shortly before the overflow with the retry stated for after the
overflow, but aside from that relatively short edge case nobody is going to
care whether the server clock is on 1901 or whatever unless we are dealing
with stuff that needs the absolute time (which this is not)

Am Di., 6. Aug. 2019 um 20:51 Uhr schrieb Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>;:

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:59 PM Philipp Junghannß <
> teamhydro55555@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> delay in whatever time unit needed is a good Idea, totally agree.
>> compatible to basically anything without needing to care for DST, leap
>> days/seconds or whatever, just a stupidly simple second counter.
>>
> And it needs to be a float type (32-bit) to support sub-second intervals.
> (also my earlier question on "Prefer: timeout= ...."  ... )
>
>
>
>> Am Mo., 5. Aug. 2019 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Amos Jeffries <
>> squid3@treenet.co.nz>;:
>>
>>> On 5/08/19 10:38 pm, Roberto Polli wrote:
>>> > Hi @all,
>>> >
>>> > While reading the Retry-After specs I was guessing...
>>> >
>>> > if we had to reboot the retry-after header, would we use the HTTP-date
>>> >  or the unix-timestamp syntax?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why re-design it at all?
>>>
>>> If anything reduce it to just the delay-seconds field value. That is
>>> compatible with any time locale.
>>>
>>> Amos
>>>
>>>