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

On 2013-09-03 10:20, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> On 03/09/2013, at 5:40 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> But it seems we lost the description of that mechanism; in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#warnings> I see:
>>
>> "HTTP/1.0 caches will cache all Warnings in responses, without deleting the ones in the first category. Warnings in responses that are passed to HTTP/1.0 caches carry an extra warning-date field, which prevents a future HTTP/1.1 recipient from believing an erroneously cached Warning."
>>
>> Maybe it would be good to re-add something like that because it explains what the date actually is for.
>
> Perhaps. Do you still have an issue with the proposed change?

I agree with the intent; I'd restore the RFC 2616 text that explains the 
purpose of the date, and move the description of the change into the 
"Changes from RFC 2616" appendix.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2013 08:50:25 UTC