Re: [upgrade] return=secure-representation

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Nottingham, Mark <mnotting@akamai.com>
wrote:

> A) This is a horrible, horrible name.
>

It's "horrible horrible"? Not just "horrible"? In that case, we should
change it!

I'd suggest either:
>
> Prefer: redir2sec
>
> ... or creating another, even shorter request header altogether (they're
> cheap).
>

`Prefer: https`?

I really don't have strong opinions about how this should be spelled, as I
think we're agreeing on the concept that lies behind the bits on the wire.


> B) If the server is making decisions based upon the presence or absence of
> this directive, it needs to either be a) uncacheable or b) listed in Vary.
>

This example you provided looks good to me, thanks!


> (Note that Connection: keep-alive is *not* relevant in HTTP/1.1).
>

This is why it's good to have expert review. :)

--
Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth
Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)