- From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:57:55 -0600
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Piotr Dobrogost <p@ietf.dobrogost.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > On 16/01/2013, at 10:37 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> We're talking about HTTP/1.x here, not 2.0. We can't retroactively make implementations non-conformant. >> >> Ah, yes. But we could stop encouraging implementors to merge multiple >> header instances. Then we only have to say that it happens and >> explain the pitfalls. > > It's extremely common to do something like: > > Cache-Control: max-age=60, must-revalidate > > Are you really saying that this should be discouraged? No. I'm saying that it's OK for apps to do that but not any other entities (middleboxes), mostly because middleboxes can't possibly know about headers that hadn't been registered when they were implemented. Nico --
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 23:58:19 UTC