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

From: Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Date: Wed, Apr 22 1998


From: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
Message-Id: <199804221617.SAA03649@wsooti20.win.tue.nl>
To: frystyk@w3.org (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:17:27 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, ietf-http-ext@w3.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.