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

On 2015-02-09 02:23, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2015, at 7:18 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 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?
>
> No. The existing, client-to-server semantic of Accept-Encoding is "For the response associated with this request, I will accept the following encodings..."
>
> In the server-to-client direction, the proposed semantic is "For some unbounded set of future requests, I might accept the following encodings..."

I agree that there's a difference here, but I fail to see how it's 
critical. I could rephrase the definition to clarify that the 
information applies to the request it was sent with, and that future 
requests can have different behavior.

> There are a number of subtle differences there, especially about the scope of applicability -- one of the most ill-defined areas in HTTP metadata.

Anything besides the freshness issue?

Best regards, Julian