W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2021

Re: Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header-09

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 11:39:44 +1000
Cc: art@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CB24D355-DFF9-4863-84E4-624498FEE21D@mnot.net>
To: (wrong string) ├╝rst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Hi Martin,

I've addressed all of these in the latest commits on:

... except for:

> Thanks! In terms of content, that's a great example (three layers, detailed explanations). But we suddenly have three header fields rather than just one. If I understand correctly, that example could also be written
> Cache-Status: ReverseProxyCache; hit,	
>   ForwardProxyCache; fwd=uri-miss; collapsed; stored,	
>   BrowserCache; fwd=uri-miss
> As far as I remember, there isn't any text that discusses trade-offs or recommends one or the other or says they are equivalent. But maybe I missed something?

That's because this is the case for all HTTP headers, not just this one. I'm extremely reluctant to re-specify or explain how HTTP works in any great detail in this specification.


Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2021 01:40:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 18 August 2021 01:40:10 UTC