- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:07:56 +0200
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 29 Jul 2016, at 9:50 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > > On 28/07/2016 6:30 p.m., Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> -------- >> In message <em51dddd7f-de76-4e87-abcb-0f315b115499@bodybag>, "Adrien de Croy" w >> rites: >> >>> The problem with deferring headers in responses to after content, is=20 >>> that proxies often make policy decisions based on response headers, and=20 >>> therefore need these to be all up front. >>> >>> Trailers for this reason are also a problem >> >> We talked about this in the workshop, and yes, trailers *in general* >> is a problem, but the specific trailers people care about are not. >> >> The trailers people ask for, as far as I understood: >> >> Etag >> >> Set-cookie >> >> Cache-Control(/Expires/Age) >> >> They are *not* a problem. >> > > Technically true. But those last three are exceedingly annoying if > pushed into Trailers. Verging on being an outright attack. Since we > reserve cache space and do a lot of storage activity before finding out > whether its actually not cacheable after all. Usually something else > potentially useful got discarded to make room for it as well. Trailer: ETag would probably be a good hint about that... -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 29 July 2016 11:08:29 UTC