W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

p2: Considerations for new headers

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:03:07 +1000
Message-Id: <B191C287-C71F-424A-9270-BF84D118E423@mnot.net>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
We should consider adding the following to the laundry list of considerations in p2 8.3.1:

* Whether the field should be stored by origin servers that understand it upon a PUT request.

Furthermore, I think we should change:

* How the header field might interact with caching (see [Part6]).


* When the header is used in requests and affects response selection [ref], it is good practice to advise listing that header in the Vary response header [ref].

Finally, we should add (near the top of the section):

New header fields cannot change the semantics of a message in an incompatible fashion. That is, it is not possible to require recipients to understand a header field through its mere presence. However, new methods and status codes can require the presence of headers in their definitions, in the scope of the message they occur within. 

Make sense?

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 08:04:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC