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 12:02:10 +0100
Message-ID: <54CF5932.5090503@gmx.de>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2015-02-02 11:55, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 2/02/2015 9:18 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2015-02-02 09:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Yes, but the semantics of those headers are exactly the same in both
>>> directions.
>>
>> I think that's the case here, too. No?
>>
>
> Unless I am completely mis-reading it.
>
> In both directions, and for all status codes it means "I can receive
> encoding format(s) X,Y,Z". The rest of the draft is just elaboration and
> specific syntax. Yes?

Yes. If we had done this in RFC 7231, it would have been something like 
5 additional lines.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 11:02:55 UTC

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