Re: p6-caching: commentary from -05 to -06

On 25/03/2009, at 8:01 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 3.2 Warnings
>> Most Warning-related text moved to Warning header definition
>> Downgraded most requirements for sending and displaying Warning to  
> It is good to keep some of them as MUST,
> 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?


Mark Nottingham

Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 05:57:33 UTC