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

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

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:14:32 -0600
Message-ID: <519A4BE8.9070700@measurement-factory.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 05/19/2013 07:36 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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?


Good question. I do not know what the use cases behind the original
MUSTs were, and whether new use cases appeared since then, so I cannot
answer this question. If there is consensus that policing Warnings by
intermediaries (including caches) is not needed, then yes, we can remove
the entire MUST NOT.


Cheers,

Alex.
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 16:15:05 UTC

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