- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:41:16 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Willy, On 17/07/2011, at 3:43 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> """ >> A cache SHOULD append a Warning header field with the 110 warn-code >> (see Section 3.6) to stale responses. Likewise, a cache SHOULD add >> the 112 warn-code to stale responses if the cache is disconnected. >> """ > > I see nothing in the text surrounding these parts which says that these 1xx > responses may only be sent to HTTP/1.1 clients. We should be careful with > this because the first iteration of 1.0 defines 1xx status codes as > "Informational - Not used, but reserved for future use", thus it is likely > that some clients will consider them as final status codes, and possibly > invalid ones. Please note that RFC2616 did not appear to put any such > reservation either. We're talking about warn-codes here, not status codes... Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 10:41:46 UTC