From: email@example.com (Koen Holtman) Message-Id: <199804221617.SAA03649@wsooti20.win.tue.nl> To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:17:27 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org 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 order. > >Henrik Koen.