WGLC issue: P6 - Multiple values in Cache-Control headers

Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Mon, 23 April 2012 17:52 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 6A96321F84EE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.333, 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 fgFrYWokPijJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC9221F84EB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SMNQm-0004vn-Eq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:52:08 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1SMNQe-0004uU-O3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:52:00 +0000
Received: from mailex.mailcore.me ([94.136.40.61]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1SMNQW-0004Wv-UX for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:51:58 +0000
Received: from cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust814.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.14.227.47] helo=[192.168.0.4]) by mail6.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1SMNQC-0006jq-L0; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:51:32 +0100
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:51:32 +0100
Message-Id: <18AB958B-CC87-44B4-9C3A-D0416C318834@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Cc: John Sullivan <jsullivan@velocix.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544
X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912
Received-SPF: none client-ip=94.136.40.61; envelope-from=ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk; helo=mailex.mailcore.me
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DECEASED_NO_ML=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1SMNQW-0004Wv-UX 9b6a8fb4e6deb9daa812ae435719e1b3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: WGLC issue: P6 - Multiple values in Cache-Control headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/18AB958B-CC87-44B4-9C3A-D0416C318834@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13463
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SMNQm-0004vn-Eq@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:52:08 +0000

Hi,

Apologies that this mail misses the WG LC deadline, in Velocix we're reviewing all the HTTPBIS documents but we're a little behind, hence the late comments, sorry. (we're still reviewing so might have more comments as we work through the documents)

In the HTTPBIS documents there are now specific directions for dealing with multiple values within Host or Content-Length headers.

However, there doesn't appear to be a general conflict resolution
strategy.

For example, if there are multiple Expires headers, valid or invalid (but
assuming at least one valid one), matching or different, which takes precedence? Or must the set be treated invalid? Always?

If "Cache-Control: max-age=5, max-age=10" is received, what is the expected behaviour?

Similar concerns apply to other sections: what do multiple ETag or Last-Modified headers mean? Or multiple Content-Range headers (the same as multiple Content-Length headers one would assume).

Thanks
Ben