- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:10:18 -0400
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24/07/2011, at 2:06 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> >> Why should they ignore if they don't have the problem? > > How can they know whether there is a problem ? Let's imagine that my server > is set one year in the future and emits Expires dates one year and a month > away. What I understand is that people were suggesting that more than one > year was a sign of misconfiguration which is the case here. So probably that > ignoring the date is easier to recover from than keeping the object in cache > for that long. I don't understand. >> Besides which, this would be introducing a requirement that makes several previously conformant implementations non-conformant. > > Well, not exactly since in the past it was a SHOULD NOT, so we don't know > how recipients consider larger values (some may already decide to ignore > them or to bound them to 1 year), which is the spirit of your proposal > anyway. No, there is no current requirement in HTTP for caches to impose the one-year limit; this would be a new requirement. > I feel like two distinct issues are being discussed here : > - how to avoid recipient's wrong behaviour > - how to deal with an error at the server's > > I was dicussing the second point but you appear to be discussing the former > (which I agree with). > > Maybe the second point is so marginal that it can safely be ignored ? > > Regards, > Willy > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2011 18:10:41 UTC