- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:06:39 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-04-24 10:03, Mark Nottingham wrote: > We should consider adding the following to the laundry list of considerations in p2 8.3.1: > > * Whether the field should be stored by origin servers that understand it upon a PUT request. > > Furthermore, I think we should change: > > * How the header field might interact with caching (see [Part6]). > > to: > > * When the header is used in requests and affects response selection [ref], it is good practice to advise listing that header in the Vary response header [ref]. > > Finally, we should add (near the top of the section): > > """ > New header fields cannot change the semantics of a message in an incompatible fashion. That is, it is not possible to require recipients to understand a header field through its mere presence. However, new methods and status codes can require the presence of headers in their definitions, in the scope of the message they occur within. > """ > > Make sense? Sounds good to me. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 08:07:16 UTC