Subject: Re: Retry-After header on 20X response -- HTTP/1.1 spec extension?

From: "Bryce Nesbitt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:46:42 -0800

Dear http-wg members.

Where would I go to propose a specification change to HTTP such as the one
below (allowing optional Retry-After headers in a 20X response)?  This is a
backwards compatible change, and need not have any browser support to be
valuable to cooperating automated harvesting robots (e.g.
http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html ).

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear Working Group Folks,
>
> I am not a member of the working group.  But I have recently been tempted
> to "stretch" the HTTP spec, and I'm writing to inquire if what I'm doing is
> reasonable enough to eventually fold into the spec.
>
> Basically I'm sending a Retry-After header on a 20x HTTP response.
>
> I'm working with a "throttled" data service which rate limits
> connections.   Clients are harvesting a huge volumes of data over time.
> Presently clients get some data with a 200 result, ask again right away and
> get a 503 response, then wait out the proper Retry-After time.
>
> If I can return Retry-After with the 20x result, it will cut the total
> requests in half.  Clients can ask for data, and know immediately how long
> to wait before they ask again.  Only a client that violates the timeout
> would ever see a 503.
>
> The HTTP/1.1 spec is pretty clear (in section 14.37) that Retry-After is
> for 503 and 3xx return codes only. Your thoughts?  Where would I go to
> suggest an expansion of the Retry-After header, to be inclusive of 20x
> results?  Is this a reasonable extension in your view?
>

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 09:33:05 -0800

Hi Bryce,

This is the correct list to discuss such a specification change.  You might
write up the proposal in the form of specific text changes that can be made
to the current in-progress HTTP specs.

Lisa

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <[email-masked]>wrote:
>