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

Re: #486: Requiring proxies to process warn-date

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:36:02 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <51907161-4A59-4225-A61D-414A322DB589@mnot.net>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>

On 17/05/2013, at 11:40 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>>> and the second to be "If a recipient receives...", also removing
>>> "forwarding" later down.
>> 
>> This would not be sufficient because "using" may be interpreted to
>> include "forwarding". How about this:
>> 
>> "A response sender MUST NOT generate warning-value with a warn-date
>> different from the Date value in the response. A cache MUST NOT send a
>> warning-value with a warn-date different from the Date value in the
>> from-cache response. A recipient MUST ignore a warning-value with a
>> warn-date different from the Date value in the response."
>> 
>> Would that cover all important cases without being too restrictive (like
>> requiring the cache not to store something when there is no harm in
>> storing, only in serving from the cache)?
> 
> I think so, although we should remove the first 'response'.

Looking at this again:

> A cache MUST NOT send a warning-value with a warn-date different from the Date value in the from-cache response.

This has the effect of requiring caches to check warning-values in all cached responses; do we still want to require that?


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 01:36:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC