W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching]

From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 13:57:43 -0700
Message-ID: <4DC460C7.6040104@gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 05/04/2011 07:01 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> OK. How do we specify this? Saying "When CC is present, you can ignore Pragma" brings about the case where:
>
> GET /foo HTTP/1.1
> Host: example.com
> Cache-Control: myweirdextension=foo
> Pragma: no-cache
>
> means that a HTTP/1.1 cache that doesn't implement myweirdextension now silently ignores the no-cache.
>
>    

Is there anything that prevents the Host: field being left out for the 
assumption of volatile (or no-cache) data is then in effect?

If Host: is intentionally left out and if there is any need to know 
where-from then use "best effort" with the assumption of either "guest" 
of known network, or "foreign" or "inherited". If "foreign" or 
"inherited" then assume either the reply-path details are already 
included (by specified protocol).

This could further eliminate the need for User-Agent: in "inherited" and 
"guest" mode. The User-Agent: field doesn't make sense in "guest" mode, 
so I would consider this optional. Could/Would... your opinion, please?

-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 20:59:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:40 GMT