- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:20:13 +0200
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-06-11 15:04, Amos Jeffries wrote: > ... > * 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) "public" vs "private"? > * time-delta parameters (max-age, s-maxage, etc) being conservative and > dropping the larger or equal of the two seems the right handling. Yes, we could say that. > * 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? Right now we allow no-cache="Foo, Bar" Should no-cache="Foo", no-cache="Bar" be equivalent? (That would be similar with the use of list syntax in header fields) Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 13:21:12 UTC