This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040008030508030100010909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/16/2012 03:31 PM, Geert Jansen wrote:
On 04/16/2012 01:03 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
So (unless someone objects) let's go for option #2 (using the Prefer header on each and every request, and release the session once it is not there).
My only objection is that you implement a draft spec and implement a header without even bothering to register it - or asking if there is such an identical-purposed header with a different name which may get registered / is already in use somewhere.
This is somewhat of a red herring though.
HTTP Prefer was created exactly for the purpose of indicating a preference for a certain behavior of response. Have a look at section 9.1.1 of the draft RFC for the initial preferences and you'll see the preferences that are already registered.
HTTP Prefer also defines a registration process for the possible values of this header. The process requires an email to preferences@ietf.org with a 14 day response time.
The alternative to HTTP Prefer would be creating a new header (as i am not aware of any other /approved/ header that fits the bill). This requires writing an RFC and get it approved, which would take much longer, and which would likely get the comment of "Why aren't you using Prefer".
I'm more worried about "persistent-auth" than 'prefer'. We could always contact the draft author (jasnell@gmail.com) and ask for his opinion. Y.
Even if HTTP Prefer, for whatever reason, unexpectedly does not become a standard, i think in practice this does not impact us in any way.
Regards Geert
--------------040008030508030100010909 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> On 04/16/2012 03:31 PM, Geert Jansen wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:4F8C112F.1060703@redhat.com" type="cite"> <br> On 04/16/2012 01:03 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: <br> <br> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">So (unless someone objects) let's go for option #2 (using the Prefer <br> header on each and every request, and release the session once it is <br> not there). <br> </blockquote> <br> My only objection is that you implement a draft spec and implement a <br> header without even bothering to register it - or asking if there is <br> such an identical-purposed header with a different name which may get <br> registered / is already in use somewhere. <br> </blockquote> <br> This is somewhat of a red herring though. <br> <br> HTTP Prefer was created exactly for the purpose of indicating a preference for a certain behavior of response. Have a look at section 9.1.1 of the draft RFC for the initial preferences and you'll see the preferences that are already registered. <br> <br> HTTP Prefer also defines a registration process for the possible values of this header. The process requires an email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:preferences@ietf.org">preferences@ietf.org</a> with a 14 day response time. <br> <br> The alternative to HTTP Prefer would be creating a new header (as i am not aware of any other /approved/ header that fits the bill). This requires writing an RFC and get it approved, which would take much longer, and which would likely get the comment of "Why aren't you using Prefer". <br> </blockquote> <br> I'm more worried about "persistent-auth" than 'prefer'. We could always contact the draft author (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jasnell@gmail.com">jasnell@gmail.com</a>) and ask for his opinion.<br> Y.<br> <br> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <blockquote cite="mid:4F8C112F.1060703@redhat.com" type="cite"> <br> Even if HTTP Prefer, for whatever reason, unexpectedly does not become a standard, i think in practice this does not impact us in any way. <br> <br> Regards <br> Geert <br> </blockquote> <br> </body> </html> --------------040008030508030100010909--