Quantcast

Using 209 for Contents of Related

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Using 209 for Contents of Related

Philippe Le Hegaret
Dear Apps Area Chairs, IETF contact, and HTTP Chair,

The Linked Data Platform WG is using a new response code to shortcut the
common POST->303 Location:X, GET ->200 interaction.
Eric Prud'hommeaux submitted a draft [2NN] before the last IETF meeting
in Toronto, but Mark said that the HTTPbis WG is too busy to take this
up and that we should take it to the Applications WG.

The LDP Working Group is using 209 for its tests inside the LDP WG but
it needs to ask for deployment outside of the Group so it need to draft
something that assigns a code to 2NN.

Does it make sense for us to include that in the test documentation,
knowing that it essentially binds us to 209 in the future, or would it
be better for us to re-draft 2nn as 209?

Thank you,

Philippe

[2NN]
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2nn/



Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using 209 for Contents of Related

Mark Nottingham-2
Hi Philippe,

With my HTTPbis Chair hat on --

> On 19 Aug 2014, at 12:06 am, Philippe Le Hegaret <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear Apps Area Chairs, IETF contact, and HTTP Chair,
>
> The Linked Data Platform WG is using a new response code to shortcut the
> common POST->303 Location:X, GET ->200 interaction.

"Using" here causes concern; is it no longer "proposing"?


> Eric Prud'hommeaux submitted a draft [2NN] before the last IETF meeting
> in Toronto, but Mark said that the HTTPbis WG is too busy to take this
> up and that we should take it to the Applications WG.

I don't recall doing that.

I emailed Eric (and others) about this in June, but didn't get a response until 17 July, by which time it was too late, so I suggested the Honolulu meeting (but still in httpbis).

Eric is free to bring it up on the WG mailing list in the meantime, of course.

It's getting hard to escape the feeling that people expect that the HTTP WG is going to rubber-stamp this proposal; I wouldn't make that assumption, and (once again) encourage its proponents to bring it up on the WG mailing list.

Regards,


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


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using 209 for Contents of Related

Eric Prud'hommeaux
* Mark Nottingham <[hidden email]> [2014-08-19 16:21+1000]

> Hi Philippe,
>
> With my HTTPbis Chair hat on --
>
> > On 19 Aug 2014, at 12:06 am, Philippe Le Hegaret <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Apps Area Chairs, IETF contact, and HTTP Chair,
> >
> > The Linked Data Platform WG is using a new response code to shortcut the
> > common POST->303 Location:X, GET ->200 interaction.
>
> "Using" here causes concern; is it no longer "proposing"?

This is within the WG which means that we have control over it (everyone's playing nicely and aware that this is provisional).


> > Eric Prud'hommeaux submitted a draft [2NN] before the last IETF meeting
> > in Toronto, but Mark said that the HTTPbis WG is too busy to take this
> > up and that we should take it to the Applications WG.
>
> I don't recall doing that.

Yeah, I told PLH that you had told me to take it to Applications, but searching my email, I think it was instead Yves or someone else who had suggested this, which means this request must come out of left field. Apologies!

The issue does remain, however; would it be better to take this to Applications?


> I emailed Eric (and others) about this in June, but didn't get a response until 17 July, by which time it was too late, so I suggested the Honolulu meeting (but still in httpbis).
>
> Eric is free to bring it up on the WG mailing list in the meantime, of course.

I got a couple of private emails discussing the impact on caches, but nothing on-list. Should I poke the list somehow, and if so, is there a protocol to say "pay attention to me!"?


> It's getting hard to escape the feeling that people expect that the HTTP WG is going to rubber-stamp this proposal; I wouldn't make that assumption, and (once again) encourage its proponents to bring it up on the WG mailing list.

I understand the concearn, but I think the TAG and the LDP WG are anxious to engage the community about this. I'd like to get some idea of the right forum so I can guage interest and issues.


> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>

--
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

([hidden email])
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using 209 for Contents of Related

Julian Reschke
On 2014-08-19 19:25, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> * Mark Nottingham <[hidden email]> [2014-08-19 16:21+1000]
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> With my HTTPbis Chair hat on --
>>
>>> On 19 Aug 2014, at 12:06 am, Philippe Le Hegaret <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Apps Area Chairs, IETF contact, and HTTP Chair,
>>>
>>> The Linked Data Platform WG is using a new response code to shortcut the
>>> common POST->303 Location:X, GET ->200 interaction.
>>
>> "Using" here causes concern; is it no longer "proposing"?
>
> This is within the WG which means that we have control over it (everyone's playing nicely and aware that this is provisional).
>
>
>>> Eric Prud'hommeaux submitted a draft [2NN] before the last IETF meeting
>>> in Toronto, but Mark said that the HTTPbis WG is too busy to take this
>>> up and that we should take it to the Applications WG.
>>
>> I don't recall doing that.
>
> Yeah, I told PLH that you had told me to take it to Applications, but searching my email, I think it was instead Yves or someone else who had suggested this, which means this request must come out of left field. Apologies!
>
> The issue does remain, however; would it be better to take this to Applications?
>
>
>> I emailed Eric (and others) about this in June, but didn't get a response until 17 July, by which time it was too late, so I suggested the Honolulu meeting (but still in httpbis).
>>
>> Eric is free to bring it up on the WG mailing list in the meantime, of course.
>
> I got a couple of private emails discussing the impact on caches, but nothing on-list. Should I poke the list somehow, and if so, is there a protocol to say "pay attention to me!"?
>
>
>> It's getting hard to escape the feeling that people expect that the HTTP WG is going to rubber-stamp this proposal; I wouldn't make that assumption, and (once again) encourage its proponents to bring it up on the WG mailing list.
>
> I understand the concearn, but I think the TAG and the LDP WG are anxious to engage the community about this. I'd like to get some idea of the right forum so I can guage interest and issues.

The right forum is the HTTP Working Group.

Best regards, Julian


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using 209 for Contents of Related

Mark Nottingham-2
In reply to this post by Eric Prud'hommeaux

On 20 Aug 2014, at 3:25 am, Eric Prud'hommeaux <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I emailed Eric (and others) about this in June, but didn't get a response until 17 July, by which time it was too late, so I suggested the Honolulu meeting (but still in httpbis).
>>
>> Eric is free to bring it up on the WG mailing list in the meantime, of course.
>
> I got a couple of private emails discussing the impact on caches, but nothing on-list. Should I poke the list somehow, and if so, is there a protocol to say "pay attention to me!”?

Eric, you’ve never brought it up on the mailing list — that would be a good start!


>> It's getting hard to escape the feeling that people expect that the HTTP WG is going to rubber-stamp this proposal; I wouldn't make that assumption, and (once again) encourage its proponents to bring it up on the WG mailing list.
>
> I understand the concearn, but I think the TAG and the LDP WG are anxious to engage the community about this. I'd like to get some idea of the right forum so I can guage interest and issues.

httpbis.

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




Loading...