W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC issue: P6 - Multiple values in Cache-Control headers

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:38:56 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, John Sullivan <jsullivan@velocix.com>
Message-Id: <0611774E-AC7D-4FD7-A3D0-6C888FE99F43@mnot.net>
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
No worries, Ben; raised as <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/353>.

On 24/04/2012, at 3:51 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:

> Hi,
> Apologies that this mail misses the WG LC deadline, in Velocix we're reviewing all the HTTPBIS documents but we're a little behind, hence the late comments, sorry. (we're still reviewing so might have more comments as we work through the documents)
> In the HTTPBIS documents there are now specific directions for dealing with multiple values within Host or Content-Length headers.
> However, there doesn't appear to be a general conflict resolution
> strategy.
> For example, if there are multiple Expires headers, valid or invalid (but
> assuming at least one valid one), matching or different, which takes precedence? Or must the set be treated invalid? Always?
> If "Cache-Control: max-age=5, max-age=10" is received, what is the expected behaviour?
> Similar concerns apply to other sections: what do multiple ETag or Last-Modified headers mean? Or multiple Content-Range headers (the same as multiple Content-Length headers one would assume).
> Thanks
> Ben

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 04:39:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:02 UTC