Re: Proposal for #486: Requiring proxies to process warn-date

On 03/09/2013, at 5:40 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> But it seems we lost the description of that mechanism; in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#warnings> I see:
> 
> "HTTP/1.0 caches will cache all Warnings in responses, without deleting the ones in the first category. Warnings in responses that are passed to HTTP/1.0 caches carry an extra warning-date field, which prevents a future HTTP/1.1 recipient from believing an erroneously cached Warning."
> 
> Maybe it would be good to re-add something like that because it explains what the date actually is for.

Perhaps. Do you still have an issue with the proposed change?

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2013 08:20:43 UTC