On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote: > >> A static set of "Prefer" headers would mean that (very much like >> "Accept") in case that content varies on `Prefer`, intermediate caches >> would have to maintain ~ a copy per UA. The damage can be minimized if UAs >> coordinate to make sure that similar `Prefer` values are *identical* >> between the different UAs. >> >> That's not *awful*, but in terms of caching, a separate header name is >> better, at least until `key >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fielding-http-key-02>` becomes a >> thing. >> >> Is "Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: yes pleasssssse" much worse than "Prefer: >> upgrade-insecure-requests"? >> > > It sounds like there's general agreement that `Prefer` is the right > semantic to use here, but there's concern (and disagreement) about whether > or not the caching impact a) exists, b) overrides the semantic value. > > If there's a clear solution for the caching problem (`key`), and we're > just waiting for it to be deployed, then I'd prefer `Prefer`. :) > > Is that a crazy stance? Are there sincere impacts to the Internets that > I'm missing? If not, I'll update the spec to `Prefer: secure-transport`. > > Fair enough. Again, as long as the values of prefer are static per UA, the caching damage is not huge, even without `key` (which isn't right around the corner). Out of curiosity, what other "Prefer" request header values are UAs sending?
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 20:29:12 UTC