IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Mon, 07 November 2016 18:20 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 0357F1294D4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:20:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.498 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=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 E9gsJI0BZT44 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:20:12 -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 93AAC12954A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c3oSd-0007xY-A9 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:15:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:15:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c3oSd-0007xY-A9@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 <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1c3oSQ-0007qv-Ek for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:15:46 +0000
Received: from mail-cys01nam02on0102.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.37.102] helo=NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1c3oSK-0004lT-Bt for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:15:41 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=7G88rcb02nQn8CbyfY7amatCEASCS7zg6z332vR5E/4=; b=UHrqBYm/TJ+SHGo1Fobd6cN6brXGkPBzMQyLhw8GlCc0+2O5vc8i4HyIG229EdLZVEHiM7IraC6sz6Zpnt/eiYT4h+2+vl9z2YB3B5pgpApQiYSLwJ0/crZ2y8DHRHOXKd2s1s6LywMRAmyCzuc5KFWGRZhcJdl6g9oiICxeT78=
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.15) by BN6PR03MB2705.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.707.6; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:15:11 +0000
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) by BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0693.016; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 18:15:11 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSONadsvK5PoqQMES9EhICsDB1F6DNzu8A
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:15:11 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB2708E3C9C2AE0E3154B892BD87A70@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <147792294052.32397.15544665152412530374.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANatvzwm_T-HW0yT1MAWEUrfw5OAVkmAZe890575qg8HuU9Z_Q@mail.gmail.com> <3134DBCF-A038-4B11-B457-8126ECD22920@mnot.net> <CABkgnnU2xq41VbJ3pyjVvrVMZ+tr9OM8EDHoHfPQ4yzDDqwEkA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnU2xq41VbJ3pyjVvrVMZ+tr9OM8EDHoHfPQ4yzDDqwEkA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:7::390]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6071e037-83f0-410b-be2e-08d4073a037f
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR03MB2705; 7:D9/1OgBrcEq+8xctz4sbktCYMnh/mYVSz3pSCGXSB3wzzA2kBPrrF8MioPXZjNSYIt/ZphU/Vk374UT/K93O/EgWe3cP29ZhTNXKuTrTzOD5u5SPHrgcQYgtZ54eRcN6Def9lYzp/pcwuY9yzFXNoC1fQ4uAwVdZ8Kr84QNxR9XGl4BJ9CiSB4XIpjrqqu2iLK4xvZLoQN+TCM9vZfwZKvY+SmJ1b+hwfcCCbdjWnPlU0DABY7PdLqVsg11FobW4BdyX11JzTUjNu3AaF3fVPiDifNWZf7+dQAlh1e8L6FCG2FiKjr+4hRKJ5ihqLvQwsnLHawVBO7Kt5Y6W0NxpLAbz1+aREH5+zOt8r7S9iovtKR9QZKUxMbtJ2Vn5GIKw
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN6PR03MB2705;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR03MB270580C4D49D029DE822F5A787A70@BN6PR03MB2705.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040176)(6060229)(6045074)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038)(6061226)(6046074); SRVR:BN6PR03MB2705; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(304825118); SRVR:BN6PR03MB2705;
x-forefront-prvs: 0119DC3B5E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(24454002)(13464003)(199003)(377454003)(51444003)(189002)(101416001)(586003)(93886004)(5660300001)(10090500001)(5001770100001)(74316002)(102836003)(6116002)(189998001)(8936002)(97736004)(122556002)(76576001)(2950100002)(92566002)(86612001)(15650500001)(86362001)(68736007)(19580395003)(19580405001)(305945005)(9686002)(7696004)(7846002)(3660700001)(3280700002)(11100500001)(5002640100001)(7736002)(50986999)(54356999)(76176999)(2906002)(33656002)(230783001)(81156014)(99286002)(87936001)(5005710100001)(10400500002)(10290500002)(2900100001)(105586002)(4326007)(77096005)(8990500004)(81166006)(106356001)(8676002)(106116001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2705; H:BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Nov 2016 18:15:11.1140 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR03MB2705
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.47.37.102; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.013, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c3oSK-0004lT-Bt 93088ac2a6a90df18171be4709c10446
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/BN6PR03MB2708E3C9C2AE0E3154B892BD87A70@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32852
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>

Compare to including differing headers between a 200 and a 304, for example -- the RFC says that servers SHOULD NOT emit headers that change the interpretation of the cached content, but that clients MUST merge in any headers the server chooses to emit.  But in practice, every browser has a list of headers it won't let the server change its mind about, and will ignore the server if it tries.  Allowing contradictory information here runs into the same effective problem.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 1:03 AM
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>; HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt

On 7 November 2016 at 18:40, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> In retrospect, it's a bit of a shame that we have this requirement in H2: "All pseudo-header fields MUST appear in the header block before regular header fields." If not for that, we could send an "early" HEADERS followed by the :status etc. in a CONTINUATION.

I don't think that this is a problem.  I mean, for requests it means that routing based on the URL can happen without arbitrary buffering.
That we also did it for responses is perhaps unnecessary, but it's a little bit of certainty and opening the door for progressive generation of headers also opens the door to new classes of ambiguity as well.  Especially since we still allow individual header fields to come in piecemeal.  I think that I prefer Kazuho's approach.

The progressive response means that this is OK for progressive things.
I wouldn't want to see a server change its mind about something; content-type might be hazardous, for example.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email