W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: p6-caching: commentary from -05 to -06

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 05:01:42 -0400 (EDT)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903250457000.19557@ubzre.j3.bet>
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 3.2 Warnings
> Most Warning-related text moved to Warning header definition
> Downgraded most requirements for sending and displaying Warning to SHOULD

It is good to keep some of them as MUST,
214 Transformation Applied is still a MUST which is a good thing.
However 110 Response is stale should be back to MUST instead of SHOULD, 
otherwise the client doesn't have a way to differentiate the response. 
(but I know that IRL it's almost never done).
One thing would be to require a MUST only when the expiration time is 
_not_ an heuristic one (as in this case, the staleness property is already 

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 09:01:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:48 UTC