- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:57:06 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
OK. I'd suggest that we can close #138 with p6-06, then. On 07/04/2009, at 12:01 AM, Yves Lafon wrote: > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >>> 214 Transformation Applied is still a MUST which is a good thing. >>> However 110 Response is stale should be back to MUST instead of >>> SHOULD, otherwise the client doesn't have a way to differentiate >>> the response. (but I know that IRL it's almost never done). >> >> If the response is stale, shouldn't that be detectable regardless >> by calculating its freshness lifetime and age independently? > > If the Age and Expiration informations are present, and if the > client implemented all the cache logic, instead of just having to > trust an upstream cache. I agree that it is quite minor... > > -- > Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. > > ~~Yves > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 03:57:44 UTC