- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:01:22 +1100
- To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Piotr Dobrogost <p@ietf.dobrogost.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 16/01/2013, at 10:57 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> On 16/01/2013, at 10:37 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>>> We're talking about HTTP/1.x here, not 2.0. We can't retroactively make implementations non-conformant. >>> >>> Ah, yes. But we could stop encouraging implementors to merge multiple >>> header instances. Then we only have to say that it happens and >>> explain the pitfalls. >> >> It's extremely common to do something like: >> >> Cache-Control: max-age=60, must-revalidate >> >> Are you really saying that this should be discouraged? > > No. I'm saying that it's OK for apps to do that but not any other > entities (middleboxes), mostly because middleboxes can't possibly know > about headers that hadn't been registered when they were implemented. OK. Is this an actual problem you've encountered? I'm fine with adding some clarifying text if it helps implementers, but I haven't seen this confusing any middlebox vendors; they tend to leave the bits alone... -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 00:01:50 UTC