- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:51:02 +0900
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: art@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hello Mark, On 2021-08-18 10:39, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I've addressed all of these in the latest commits on: > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commits/main/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header.md Thanks, great! > ... 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. Sorry, reading too many mail-related discussions lately. Regards, Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2021 01:51:20 UTC