- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:04:52 +0100
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
- Cc: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 10:47:13AM +0100, Greg Wilkins wrote: > I've not yet seen a proposal for using headers that > addresses the problem of clients that don't know the new headers mistaking > the 200 response as valid/complete. For me, pre-announcing cache-control in the headers was targetting this requirement: if you indicate the response is not cacheable until the final verdict, this is no more a problem. At least I'm seeing something positive in all this discussion, it emphasizes the importance of distinguishing the term "field" from the term "header" :-) Willy
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2021 10:05:16 UTC