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: 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>
Message-ID: <c573e319-66a1-d88a-3ed3-b57cc1a41c7c@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 18 August 2021 01:51:22 UTC