- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:05:05 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi everybody, Nice work! Here's my feedback (completely editorial): > 2.1. About Intermediaries > > An immutable response has the same semantic meaning when received by > proxy clients as it does when received by User-Agent based clients. > Therefore proxies SHOULD skip conditionally revalidating fresh > responses containing the immutable extension unless there is a signal > from the client that a validation is necessary (e.g. a no-cache > Cache-Control request directive). Maybe point to Section 5.2.1.4 of RFC 7234 here... > A proxy that uses immutable to bypass a conditional revalidation may > choose whether to reply with a 304 or 200 to its requesting client > based on the request headers the proxy received. s/may/MAY/ or s/may/can/ > 2.2. Example > > Cache-Control: max-age=31536000, immutable Maybe add a full example, including a request/response pair for the case when "immutable" is not present? > 4. IANA Considerations > > [RFC7234] sections 7.1 and 7.1.2 require registration of the s/[RFC7234] sections 7.1 and 7.1.2/Section 7.1 of .../ > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 14 May 2017 09:05:44 UTC