IETF Logo Mail Archive

1xx response semantics

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 04 July 2011 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 11CD121F879A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 16:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1oSl5UHx0jUr for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 16:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B27721F8788 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 16:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Qdsmh-0006HB-V3 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:42:35 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1QdsmY-0006GL-1w for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:42:26 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1QdsmW-0005Ix-Gl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:42:25 +0000
Received: from hostc42c030a0ed2.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.116.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A54B509B3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:42:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:41:59 +1000
Message-Id: <713362A0-3316-4B4C-B154-581CB32B8A9B@mnot.net>
To: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1QdsmW-0005Ix-Gl 741280d5dce8a8387bb96c6a31814718
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: 1xx response semantics
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/713362A0-3316-4B4C-B154-581CB32B8A9B@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10880
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Qdsmh-0006HB-V3@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:42:35 +0000

One (of many) of the issues with 1xx responses is that people don't know how to surface two responses to one request in APIs and tools. 

I think we could make things a bit easier for folks if we stated that the headers in a 1xx response are semantically not significant; i.e., it's OK for APIs, etc. to drop them on the floor, because the only information is in the status code.

This would mean that people shouldn't put headers on a 1xx response and expect applications to see them -- which I think is already the case today.

Thoughts? 


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email