- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:21:22 -0700
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>I.e., the specification for "community" could include, >hypothetically, "an implementation that complies with the >specification for the community directive SHOULD ignore the >no-store directive if it appears together with the community >directive." Which means that the no-store directive, being >ignored, would not take precedence over the max-age directive >for "community-aware" implementations. But the existing text already handles that situation as a condition on the meaning of max-age, and the extension rules already allow new extensions to modify the interpretation of other cache-directives. It seems to me that adding a further MUST requirement will just raise the issue of which section has precedence, particularly since implementing the extension mechanism itself is not a MUST requirement. That is what I meant by a contradiction. I think we both agree on what is desirable from the implementation, but I think the existing text is less confusing than the proposed change. Is there another alternative? ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 18:23:00 UTC