IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 02 February 2015 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C311A000B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:10:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7E7xJ13UpEKC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:10:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5BFF1A002A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YIC3d-0003ff-5S for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:08:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:08:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YIC3d-0003ff-5S@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1YIC3Y-0003eI-6G for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:08:28 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1YIC3X-0004VN-A8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:08:28 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.25.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9388522E264; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 03:08:02 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B466)
In-Reply-To: <54CF2DEE.7000101@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:07:56 +1100
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F61F2B2-F6F6-4E7C-A4F8-A1045609E094@mnot.net>
References: <54CCB62F.8050004@gmx.de> <EBFB3731-974E-44A5-A4A6-28413F2567A9@mnot.net> <54CF2DEE.7000101@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.037, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YIC3X-0004VN-A8 c68b2321a22ddde7be8845193777821b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/2F61F2B2-F6F6-4E7C-A4F8-A1045609E094@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28737
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>

Yes, but the semantics of those headers are exactly the same in both directions.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Feb 2015, at 6:57 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 2015-02-02 07:39, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>> 
>>> the minutes (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/minutes?item=minutes-90-httpbis.html>) say:
>>> 
>>>> MarK: Different meaning in the request vs. response, makes him twitchy
>>> 
>>> Mark, could you elaborate on that a bit? Do you believe that changing something which currently is a request header field only to be used as response header field as well to be a problem in general? Why?
>> 
>> Experience with Cache-Control -- people get confused over what the pertinent directives are in each direction, and misuse it as a result.
>> 
>> Cheers,
> 
> Well, we've got many other header fields where the experience seems to be exactly the opposite, say Content-Type or Content-Encoding. Thus I'm not yet convinced this is an issue...
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status