W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:39:27 +1100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <EBFB3731-974E-44A5-A4A6-28413F2567A9@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> On 31 Jan 2015, at 10:02 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi there,
> the minutes (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/minutes?item=minutes-90-httpbis.html>) say:
>> MarK: Different meaning in the request vs. response, makes him twitchy
> Mark, could you elaborate on that a bit? Do you believe that changing something which currently is a request header field only to be used as response header field as well to be a problem in general? Why?

Experience with Cache-Control -- people get confused over what the pertinent directives are in each direction, and misuse it as a result.


Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 06:39:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC