Re: WGLC: p6 editorial nits

Mark Nottingham <> Tue, 23 April 2013 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE68521F9601 for <>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.503
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q1jgVqi54kA8 for <>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D9621F8ACE for <>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1UUWW4-0000S6-1O for; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:15:48 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:15:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1UUWW0-0000RE-2J for; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:15:44 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1UUWVz-0005up-BO for; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:15:44 +0000
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53A1750A87; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:15:20 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:15:18 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Ken Murchison <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.342, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1UUWVz-0005up-BO 20cfe8f60213af3085bb6665a62186e4
Subject: Re: WGLC: p6 editorial nits
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/17484
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 26/03/2013, at 7:17 AM, Ken Murchison <> wrote:

> Hi All,
> Sec 7.2, last sentence: "... otherwise stated otherwise." -> "... unless stated otherwise."

I think Julian has already taken care of this; thanks.

> I'm also wondering if draft-snell-http-prefer can have any effect on the cacheability of responses to PUT/POST, namely a response that includes Preference-Applied:return=representation.  Since the purpose of return=representation is to eliminate the need for a subsequent GET, it would seem to me that the response could be used to update a cache.  The current language in p2 and p6 doesn't appear to leave any wiggle room for an "extension" such as Prefer.  Of course, I'm the farthest thing from a HTTP cache expert and might have missed such text and/or don't understand the implications of allowing such a thing.

A new header can enhance the caching behaviour, just as a new cache-control directive can. However, it needs to be in a backwards compatible way; i.e., it can't place any requirements upon implementations that don't understand it.

We probably need a few words about this in p2's "considerations for new headers"; I have a few other suggestions there that I'll include it with.


Mark Nottingham