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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:56:56 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <697F1F46-E57E-4E85-8941-F3DCDC6FD16B@mnot.net>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>

On 25/03/2009, at 8:01 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:

> 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  
> 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).

If the response is stale, shouldn't that be detectable regardless by  
calculating its freshness lifetime and age independently?


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 05:57:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:01 GMT