- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:09:09 +1100
- To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ben, See: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/36b220791cc7 Regarding this: >> 2.2 - Hypothetically, a more complex client might cache per network location and revive the cached entries when it returns to the network where it received them. > > That seems reasonable. It might be worth mentioning that in the text as an example of why one might not follow the SHOULD. I had trouble incorporating that in a way that didn't make the spec significantly harder to read. Also, IIRC a bigger reason for the SHOULD is that we're acknowledging that information about network state might not be available or reliable. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2016 03:09:44 UTC