- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:58:29 +1000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 Aug 2014, at 2:44 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 August 2014 10:30, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: >> "While the stream identified by the promised stream ID is still open" - meaning that as long as the client has asked for it before the server has finished sending it? That's a fairly small amount of time, particularly if the resource is very small, but sounds like a good starting point. > > > How would people feel if I removed that clause. They can be > considered validated. The period over which that validation applies > is then no different to a regular request/response exchange, which > suffers all of the same sorts of thorny and ambiguous validity issues. > (i.e., By avoiding an attempt to define validity expressly, we're not > making it worse, even if we're not tackling the issue fully.) You mean removing the entire sentence, or just the clause quoted above? Just removing the clause leaves it open-ended, and some might read it as giving permission to make it indefinite. Removing the entire sentence makes me less uncomfortable — but I still think some implementation guidance would be useful. Remember — we’re talking about how long the HTTP cache can consider the response valid, not how the application using it can reuse that response (as browsers and intermediaries already do quite a bit). Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 25 August 2014 22:59:14 UTC