[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session.
From: |
Josh Cohen |
Subject: |
RE: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session. |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:30:18 -0800 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Foteos Macrides [SMTP:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 7:02 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session.
>
> Al Gilman <address@hidden> wrote:
> >Two issues came up in today's session of the HTTP 1.1 WG that
> >left me curious. Not that any major decisions hang on the
> >answers, but:
> >
> >Lynx came up when the fellow from MicroSoft quipped regarding the
> >305 proxy redirection message "Lynx has implemented it."
> >
> >Later it appeared he meant to be humorous, as it was left as an
> >open question.
> >
> >The Conventional Wisdom in the meeting is that 305 is broken and
> >306 didn't fix it. The group is headed in the direction that
> >this function will not be present in the "Draft Standard" version
> >of 1.1.
> >
> >Going, going...
[Joshua Cohen]
Well, I guess its time for me to fess up.
Im the guy who "quipped". Im also the guy who wrote the 305/306
draft to specify
the 305 and 306 so that they are usable.
Unfortunately, we simply couldnt resolve the security implications
in time
and leaving them in the http/1.1 draft puts the entire protocol at
risk from
a process point of view.
Before anyone jumps at dont put process over function, if we had a
good
resolution, Id be pushing for it in the core protocol. We dont, and
until
we do, it needs to wait..
>
> The specs for 305 in the most current HTTP/1.1 draft in
> effect describe Lynx's implementation, years ago, but not
> completely. Lynx's implementation:
>
[Joshua Cohen] [--snipped--]
> If 306 is revised, it would be better to treat that as
> a new status, not a revision of 305, and have 306 based on only a
> Set-Proxy: header, with no Location header. Browsers which do not
> implement it thus will treat it as 300, and should show the body
> by virtue of no Location header being present.
>
> Whether or not the "guys at MicroSoft" as yet grasp the
> occassional uses to which 304, 305, and 307 might be put, they
> nonetheless can be useful ocassionally (that statement was intended
> to be humorous ). But 306 does need more work before it's
> intended uses can be achieved.
>
[Joshua Cohen] This "guy at microsoft" gets it, and I beleive
that most of my colleagues do as well. As I said earlier, the
305-306 draft (which was supposed to roll into http/1.1)
was my doing.
Please dont ascribe any higher meaning to the fact that
a "microsoft" guy spoke about temporarily holding
305/306 from the http/1.1 draft. Im still enthusiastic
about the 305/306 functionality but until
we can resolve the very real security implications
it is prudent to withold it from the draft..
Josh Cohen <address@hidden>
>
- LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session., Al Gilman, 1997/12/08
- Re: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session., Foteos Macrides, 1997/12/09
- RE: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session.,
Josh Cohen <=
- Re: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session., Foteos Macrides, 1997/12/10
- RE: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session., Yaron Goland, 1997/12/10
- Re: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session., Foteos Macrides, 1997/12/10
- RE: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session., Paul Leach, 1997/12/11
- RE: LYNX-DEV two curiosities from IETF HTTP session., Yaron Goland, 1997/12/12