- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 22:46:51 +1100
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 03/04/2013, at 8:27 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > On 3/04/2013 5:32 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 31/03/2013, at 11:30 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> Perhapse this is a bit better? >>> >>> " >>> >>> If multiple selected responses are available, the cache will need to choose one to use. When a selecting header has a known mechanism for doing so (e.g., qvalues on Accept and similar request headers), that mechanism SHOULD be used to eliminate unwanted responses; of the remainder, the most recent response (as determined by the Date header field) is used, as per Section 4. >>> >>> " >>> >>> Making it clear that Date mechanism still applies, but only after the negotiation filtering has been done. AFAIK that is how it always gets done in practice anyway. >> I'm OK with your intent, but upgrading the MAY to a SHOULD is going to make implementations non-conformant. > > How? and which ones? > > I would think upgrading it to MUST would make things non-conformant but SHOULD is not absolute. That's not what SHOULD means. A SHOULD is still a requirement; it's just that there are situations where there's ample justification for violating it. Also, with a very few exceptions, RFC2119 requirements are used to improve interoperability. This isn't an interoperability requirement. We can't impose a SHOULD -- especially on something like this, when many implementations are likely to violate it today -- just because we really want something to happen. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 11:47:19 UTC