- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:20:38 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Looks good to me as well. On 24 Apr 2013, at 09:06, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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 08:18:19 UTC