Re: #486: Requiring proxies to process warn-date

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 17/05/2013, at 11:40 AM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>> and the second to be "If a recipient receives...", also removing
>>> "forwarding" later down.
>> 
>> This would not be sufficient because "using" may be interpreted to
>> include "forwarding". How about this:
>> 
>> "A response sender MUST NOT generate warning-value with a warn-date
>> different from the Date value in the response. A cache MUST NOT send a
>> warning-value with a warn-date different from the Date value in the
>> from-cache response. A recipient MUST ignore a warning-value with a
>> warn-date different from the Date value in the response."
>> 
>> Would that cover all important cases without being too restrictive (like
>> requiring the cache not to store something when there is no harm in
>> storing, only in serving from the cache)?
> 
> I think so, although we should remove the first 'response'.

Looking at this again:

> A cache MUST NOT send a warning-value with a warn-date different from the Date value in the from-cache response.

This has the effect of requiring caches to check warning-values in all cached responses; do we still want to require that?


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/