W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p2: Considerations for new headers

From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:20:38 +0100
Message-Id: <95E053C2-268B-4BD0-9034-C57F5EF68C6E@isode.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:10 UTC