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 19:07:56 +1100
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2F61F2B2-F6F6-4E7C-A4F8-A1045609E094@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Yes, but the semantics of those headers are exactly the same in both directions.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Feb 2015, at 6:57 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> 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 08:08:28 UTC

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