- From: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:10:54 +0100
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Jim, I would propose the insertion of one sentence after the first sentence in 14.38. BTW, this does highlight the fact that it hasn't been clarified whether Retry-After with a 503 is a MUST, SHOULD or MAY. Given it currently says "can", I'd say MAY, which I've also reflected in the wording below: 14.38 Retry-After The Retry-After response-header field MAY be used with a 503 (Service Unavailable) response to indicate how long the service is expected to be unavailable to the requesting client. This field MAY also be used with any 3xx (Redirection) response to indicate the minimum time the user-agent should wait before issuing the redirected request. The value... Bob At 01:47 PM 16/07/97 -0700, Jim Gettys wrote: >Could you please draft exact wording changes to the HTTP/1.1 document >to resolve this issue as soon as possible, or at least could you >let me know that you can't spend the time? We're working had on >the HTTP/1.1 specification for Munich. > >It needs to say exactly for which status codes this should apply. > Thanks, > Jim Gettys > ________________________________________________________ Notice: This contribution is the personal view of the author and does not necessarily reflect the technical nor commercial direction of British Telecommunications plc. ________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 24 July 1997 01:23:04 UTC