IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03.txt> (An HTTP Status Code for Indicating Hints) to Experimental RFC

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 27 June 2017 05:29 UTC

Return-Path: <w@1wt.eu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5EF1287A7; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 22:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 DXba4Z89l9N2; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 22:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1wt.eu (wtarreau.pck.nerim.net [62.212.114.60]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19AA21200E5; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 22:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v5R5TSQQ005592; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:29:28 +0200
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:29:28 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03.txt> (An HTTP Status Code for Indicating Hints) to Experimental RFC
Message-ID: <20170627052928.GA5568@1wt.eu>
References: <149806437201.15854.12299810594896460001.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <149806437201.15854.12299810594896460001.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/liRJ_8jE0dD-9vxOYDWMVNru_7M>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 05:29:37 -0000

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:59:32AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Hypertext Transfer Protocol WG
> (httpbis) to consider the following document: - 'An HTTP Status Code for
> Indicating Hints'
>   <draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-03.txt> as Experimental RFC

I've just noticed that it's never mentionned that a client should be
prepared to receive multiple 103 responses as any informational response
(or at least I did not notice).

I think that indicating that multiple responses MAY be sent with complementary
and/or possibly overlapping links, it may help grasp the overall principle
and the relation between these informational responses and the final one.

The case I'm having in mind is the same as described in the PR comment, a
server-side gateway could speculatively send a 103 with a few site-specific
links while the server provides another 103 with some resource-specific
links.

Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email