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, 09 Feb 2015 08:11:04 +0100
Message-ID: <54D85D88.7020305@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 07:11:36 UTC

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