LAST CALL on MAX-AGE issue

Unfortunately, the issues list at

	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/#MAX-AGE

references the wrong email message from Roy as the Proposed Resolution.
The reference to

	http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1997q1/0650.html

should be replaced by a reference to

	http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1997q1/0684.html

where Roy said "I am changing my proposed change."

Anyway, I would like to suggest a few minor, non-normative changes
(to Roy's updated proposal):

(1) I think this note (in Roy's proposal)

     Note: An origin server wishing to use a relatively new HTTP cache
     control feature, such as the "private" directive, on a network
     that includes older caches which do not understand that feature,
     will need to combine the new feature with an old Expires value
     in order to prevent the older caches from caching the response.

could be made slightly clearer:

     Note: An origin server wishing to use a relatively new HTTP cache
     control feature, such as the "private" directive, on a network
     including older caches that do not understand that feature, will
     need to combine the new feature with an Expires field whose value
     is less than or equal to the Date value.  This will prevent older
     caches from improperly caching the response.

(2) I think it would be a good idea to include after the last
paragraph of this section (14.9.3):

   If a cache returns a stale response, either because of a max-stale
   directive on a request, or because the cache is configured to
   override the expiration time of a response, the cache MUST attach a
   Warning header to the stale response, using Warning 10 (Response is
   stale).

the following note:

       Note: A cache may be configured to return stale responses
       without validation, but only if this does not conflict with any
       MUST-level requirements concerning cache validation (e.g., a
       "must-revalidate" Cache-control directive).
    
In a private email discussion during March, Roy pointed out that
this is said elsewhere in the specification.  However, I'm concerned
that some implementors may misconstrue the discussion in 14.9.3
without such a reminder.

-Jeff

Received on Friday, 18 July 1997 18:25:35 UTC