- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:48:01 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
On 2012-07-05 01:28, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 05/07/2012, at 12:17 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2012-07-03 04:38, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> I haven't heard any more discussion of this. As it is, we have a proposal to close this issue: >>> >>>> Add a note to <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html#calculating.freshness.lifetime>: >>>> >>>> """ >>>> 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. >>>> """ >>> >>> Feedback? >>> ... >> >> Sounds good to me. Proposed patch: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/353/353.diff> > > > Thinking about this a bit more, I'm somewhat uncomfortable about making it a requirement, especially considering the discussion that followed. Given that, how about: > > """ > 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 are encouraged to consider responses that have invalid freshness information to be stale. > """ Is "are encouraged to" different from "ought to"? Just wondering, Julian
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 06:48:35 UTC