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

Re: WGLC #353: Multiple Values in Cache-Control headers

From: Ludin, Stephen <sludin@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:05:51 -0500
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBED5490.394F2%sludin@akamai.com>
I like the 'SHOULD' part, but I am uncomfortable with the MAY.  My crystal
ball sees multiple interpretations and implementation of recovery attempts
in the future.  I would suggest leaving the MAY phrase off as it seems to
only invite trouble.

-stephen

On 5/31/12 4:58 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

><http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/353>
>
>I think this issue is a re-hash of the discussions around error-handling.
>
>At most, we might add a note to
><https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-ca
>che.html#calculating.freshness.lifetime> like this:
>
>"""
>When there is more than one value present for a given directive (e.g.,
>two Expires headers, multiple Cache-Control: max-age directives), it is
>considered invalid. Caches SHOULD consider responses that have invalid
>freshness information to be stale, but MAY attempt to recover (e.g., by
>using the most conservative value).
>"""
>
>The issue also suggests other places to look, but I'm inclined not to go
>too far down this path.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>--
>Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 00:06:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 June 2012 00:06:38 GMT