- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:04:24 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 12/06/2012 12:10 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-06-11 13:57, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> ... >>> If that is the case, we probably need to spend some more time on >>> clarifying this, as this different from similar header fields. >> >> How so? I thought we'd agreed we don't have shared microsyntax / >> model for our existing headers... > > At least for those headers that inherit MIME header field parameter > syntax (such as C-T and C-D) I believe the consensus was that > parameters can not get repeated. It might be hard to find something > normative on that, though. > > So let's rephrase this: optimally, we > > - defined this for all header fields in the spec (optimally globally > for all parameters of that header field), and > > - advise people defining new header fields to do so as well (-> > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19.html#rfc.section.3.1>) > > >>>>> Can the definition of error recovery diverge per directive? >>>> >>>> I imagine so. >>> >>> Which makes it sound as if we should define it for all directives >>> defined in this spec (as bad as this sounds)... >> >> >> If someone wants to point out specific instances where they believe >> it's important for security and/or interoperability, and it doesn't >> fall afoul of our stance on error handling, by all means. > > Right now we don't say anything what to do, for instance, with two > max-age directives? If this is an invalid header field instance, we > should say so. If it's not, we should say how to handle that. * flag parameters can't exactly contradict, so dropping/merging duplicates and treating as one flag would seem okay. (only-if-cached must-revalidate, proxy-ravalidate, no-cache, no-store, no-transform, etc) * time-delta parameters (max-age, s-maxage, etc) being conservative and dropping the larger or equal of the two seems the right handling. * list of tokens ... maybe combine? it is possible one proxy adds no-cache="Foo" and another adds no-cache="Bar" and they both hit some downstream cache which needs to handle both Foo and Bar properly. Yes the right thing to do woudl have been no-cache="Foo Bar". But what if that is not done? AYJ
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 13:05:18 UTC