On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:36:59PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > Understood. But is this a requirement or just a suggestion? Does > > > a client > > > need to forget the information from the 103 when it's not repeated in the > > > final response? > > > > Hmmm the text says : > > "This memo defines a status code for sending an informational response > > ([RFC7231], Section 6.2) that contains header fields that are likely > > to be included in the final response" > > > > Thus I think that the final header fields are the real ones, and that > > those sent early are more about hints to help the client get mostly > > prepared. Can there be a conflict between two overlapping header field > > values for the same link ? If so, some text needs to be appended to > > mandate that the final response the the only authoritative one and that > > the interim ones are only here to help fill silence periods on the link. > > I'm interested in the case where the Link appears in the 103 but not in the > final response... I think it will be very common, because I see a cool opportunity here for edge gateways to send a few links regardless of what the origin server thinks about this. I'm even considering implementing this capability into haproxy because I think it can bring some value. So if this is going to have side effects, it would be nice that they are properly estimated. Willy