Re: comments on draft-ietf-http-ext-mandatory-00.txt

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (frystyk@w3.org)
Date: Sat, Apr 11 1998


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980411180814.008aac00@localhost>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 18:08:14 +0900
To: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-http-ext-mandatory-00.txt

At 20:28 3/26/98 +0100, Koen Holtman wrote:

>I just realised that you also may want to forbid man: headers in 304
>responses altogether as they may overwrite an already-existing man
>header in the cached entry.

But 304 already SHOULD NOT contain any new header fields - exactly for the
sake of consistency. Why is this different for Man than for any other header?

Henrik
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk