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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:48:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4FF538A1.8080106@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
On 2012-07-05 01:28, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> On 05/07/2012, at 12:17 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 2012-07-03 04:38, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> I haven't heard any more discussion of this. As it is, we have a proposal to close this issue:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> """
>>>
>>> Feedback?
>>> ...
>>
>> Sounds good to me. Proposed patch: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/353/353.diff>
>
>
> Thinking about this a bit more, I'm somewhat uncomfortable about making it a requirement, especially considering the discussion that followed. Given that, how about:
>
> """
> 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 are encouraged to consider responses that have invalid freshness information to be stale.
> """

Is "are encouraged to" different from "ought to"?

Just wondering,

Julian
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 06:48:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 July 2012 06:48:40 GMT