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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:30:37 +1000
Message-Id: <CC8C9073-ADCA-44DE-87CA-B108345C6603@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Revised proposal, based upon discussion:

> Add a note to <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html#calculating.freshness.lifetime>:
> 
> """
> 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.
> """


Any further comments? Otherwise we'll close and incorporate.

Regards,



On 31/05/2012, at 9:58 PM, Mark Nottingham 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-cache.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/
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 07:32:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 June 2012 07:32:05 GMT