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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:57:34 +0100
Message-ID: <54CF2DEE.7000101@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2015-02-02 07:39, Mark Nottingham 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.
>
> Cheers,

Well, we've got many other header fields where the experience seems to 
be exactly the opposite, say Content-Type or Content-Encoding. Thus I'm 
not yet convinced this is an issue...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 07:58:14 UTC

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