- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:36:02 +1000
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17/05/2013, at 11:40 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> and the second to be "If a recipient receives...", also removing >>> "forwarding" later down. >> >> This would not be sufficient because "using" may be interpreted to >> include "forwarding". How about this: >> >> "A response sender MUST NOT generate warning-value with a warn-date >> different from the Date value in the response. A cache MUST NOT send a >> warning-value with a warn-date different from the Date value in the >> from-cache response. A recipient MUST ignore a warning-value with a >> warn-date different from the Date value in the response." >> >> Would that cover all important cases without being too restrictive (like >> requiring the cache not to store something when there is no harm in >> storing, only in serving from the cache)? > > I think so, although we should remove the first 'response'. Looking at this again: > A cache MUST NOT send a warning-value with a warn-date different from the Date value in the from-cache response. This has the effect of requiring caches to check warning-values in all cached responses; do we still want to require that? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 01:36:29 UTC