- From: Ludin, Stephen <sludin@akamai.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:05:51 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I like the 'SHOULD' part, but I am uncomfortable with the MAY. My crystal ball sees multiple interpretations and implementation of recovery attempts in the future. I would suggest leaving the MAY phrase off as it seems to only invite trouble. -stephen On 5/31/12 4:58 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: ><http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/353> > >I think this issue is a re-hash of the discussions around error-handling. > >At most, we might add a note to ><https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-ca >che.html#calculating.freshness.lifetime> like this: > >""" >When there is more than one value present for a given directive (e.g., >two Expires headers, multiple Cache-Control: max-age directives), it is >considered invalid. Caches SHOULD consider responses that have invalid >freshness information to be stale, but MAY attempt to recover (e.g., by >using the most conservative value). >""" > >The issue also suggests other places to look, but I'm inclined not to go >too far down this path. > >Thoughts? > >-- >Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > >
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 00:06:32 UTC