IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: p6: Returning the freshest response

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 29 March 2013 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8461021F92A4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FTIRcLQXBn5l for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A87821F8FF5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ULhr3-000121-GI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:33:01 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:33:01 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ULhr3-000121-GI@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1ULhqj-0000vN-Dm for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:32:41 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com ([74.125.82.179]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1ULhqi-0008Hh-Qg for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:32:41 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id p43so637797wea.10 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dSuJpU1i5fKvnNHa7yCGoX0jwRgTxewgjiTNRcOGrY0=; b=dNQBcKZgbxhJLrZI0X2T5UDxxiBM9peef/Q4KaIB1u0OWE1mDauFMisbm/0FpxnbYd UmHQ6u7nSSWi3OG5A9zM6UrPaa7Mx3TtUz37gerIlav5ETpB1BKG4theGUctklbnM4q7 WOsnRX80gPZnffILqsqvqo0YMbG8h8wUZBgkLiIydipwv4jkb0rhFLpPA1/KRq3S9wkC icK7OvDf1L2X8a7NLCnsv7OyqR1kUeaaUrqNQvNLIgJNJDHy/fK4qj7sI412vWX0UJys ROPJxxGbRVh2rqC137c3cX7SJN64bf7ZbWVU/MMbwHHFeebIVYy9FC9ES5TLcCQ8y7ch bLuQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.92.231 with SMTP id cp7mr5778162wjb.19.1364596334661; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.41.35 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <458FCCFB-E5B0-4A9A-8CCD-BEFCBA8E1BC2@mnot.net>
References: <E56A5FA7-555D-4283-95A1-FD0030D4616A@mnot.net> <5155B23A.2050002@andrew.cmu.edu> <CABkgnnUc+CxTUfVvxsyJnG6pemkTpC9Z+3bQeaZbfnAdALZEtQ@mail.gmail.com> <5155BB1C.1020703@andrew.cmu.edu> <CABkgnnVtiRV0HNAY04nyD+h=0BEWt1ACCtGZSPNxgZ-cS9M=xA@mail.gmail.com> <458FCCFB-E5B0-4A9A-8CCD-BEFCBA8E1BC2@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:32:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUCK7b18-W_g8cfuU551pSHtiQfmveXmp-dbwfAYd6JhQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.179; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f179.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.636, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1ULhqi-0008Hh-Qg c2a70338d93d10967bb44919f85a2b01
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p6: Returning the freshest response
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnUCK7b18-W_g8cfuU551pSHtiQfmveXmp-dbwfAYd6JhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17182
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 29 March 2013 15:11, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> The SHOULD is qualified sufficiently that I believe that a MUST is
>> more appropriate.
>
> The requirement is of the form "SHOULD... unless...", with the clause:
>
>> , unless the variance cannot be crossed or the origin server has been deliberately configured to prevent cache transparency.
>
> so I think this one is OK.

I'm not familiar with the "SHOULD...unless" construct.
"MUST...unless" is better typically, unless there are other,
unspecified reasons that this directive can be ignored.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email