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

Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:10:18 -0400
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3FCE9E1A-6493-470D-8017-E68C8A8FC9A1@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

On 24/07/2011, at 2:06 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> 
>> Why should they ignore if they don't have the problem?
> 
> How can they know whether there is a problem ? Let's imagine that my server
> is set one year in the future and emits Expires dates one year and a month
> away. What I understand is that people were suggesting that more than one
> year was a sign of misconfiguration which is the case here. So probably that
> ignoring the date is easier to recover from than keeping the object in cache
> for that long.

I don't understand. 


>> Besides which, this would be introducing a requirement that makes several previously conformant implementations non-conformant. 
> 
> Well, not exactly since in the past it was a SHOULD NOT, so we don't know
> how recipients consider larger values (some may already decide to ignore
> them or to bound them to 1 year), which is the spirit of your proposal
> anyway.

No, there is no current requirement in HTTP for caches to impose the one-year limit; this would be a new requirement.


> I feel like two distinct issues are being discussed here :
>  - how to avoid recipient's wrong behaviour
>  - how to deal with an error at the server's
> 
> I was dicussing the second point but you appear to be discussing the former
> (which I agree with).
> 
> Maybe the second point is so marginal that it can safely be ignored ?
> 
> Regards,
> Willy
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2011 18:10:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:45 GMT