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

From: Koen Holtman (
Date: Wed, Apr 22 1998

From: (Koen Holtman)
Message-Id: <>
To: (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:17:27 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-http-ext-mandatory-00.txt

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen:
>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?

Hmm, I think you are right.  Protocol extensions would be free to
ignore the SHOULD NOT though, so maybe an extra word of warning is in