- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:23:51 -0800
- To: "'Travis Snoozy \(Volt\)'" <a-travis@microsoft.com>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> The modified proposal (after discussion) is ...
> "A cache MUST NOT generate 1xx warn-codes for any messages
> except cache entries, and MUST NOT generate 1xx warn-codes
> for a cache entry except in response to a validation attempt
> for that entry. 1xx warn-codes MUST NOT be generated in
> Request messages."
I think this rewrite is worse than the text it
proposes to replace, as far as being misleading.
The text is part of a description of the differences
between 1xx warnings and 2xx warnings, and the
'right' rewrite is to make the descriptions more
parallel.
The actual conditions for when a 1xx warning
may be generated (and MUST NOT) be generated
are contained in section 13.1.1.
Probably the right thing to do is to tighten up the
language in 13.1.1 so that it is clearly normative,
and then chanage the 3.1.2 Warnings section so that
it doesn't attempt to summarize them more succinctly
than they can be. I'd suggest:
1xx Warnings that describe the freshness or revalidation status of
the response. These warnings are generally deleted after
successful validation (the rules for when a cache MUST or
MUST NOT include or delete a warning response are in section 13.1.1.)
2xx Warnings that describe some aspect of the entity body or entity
headers that is not rectified by a revalidation (for example, a
lossy compression of the entity bodies). 2xx MUST NOT be
deleted after a successful revalidation.
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 21:24:33 UTC