IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: p6: Returning the freshest response

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Wed, 03 April 2013 09:29 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 7D71D21F85EB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 02:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.639
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, 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 t+wow2-TYma9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 02:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A74821F85E8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 02:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UNJzb-0002ZO-FJ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:28:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:28:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UNJzb-0002ZO-FJ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1UNJzX-0002X6-OE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:28:27 +0000
Received: from ip-58-28-153-233.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz ([58.28.153.233] helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1UNJyl-0004fQ-UL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:28:01 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.7] (103-9-43-128.flip.co.nz [103.9.43.128]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B797E7415; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:27:13 +1200 (NZST)
Message-ID: <515BF5EC.8020401@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:27:08 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <E56A5FA7-555D-4283-95A1-FD0030D4616A@mnot.net> <CABkgnnXbDfXN1KA-AfHcW=macw44hK346z0UuYMZYx8OXBZv4g@mail.gmail.com> <51578395.6070800@treenet.co.nz> <F3BC48ED-ACF6-4CA4-A0EE-089BBCD98069@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <F3BC48ED-ACF6-4CA4-A0EE-089BBCD98069@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=58.28.153.233; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-5.076, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.246, RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL=1.284, RCVD_IN_XBL=0.724, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UNJyl-0004fQ-UL 9235273333cbb0d666e6746cbfd37f7b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p6: Returning the freshest response
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/515BF5EC.8020401@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17195
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 3/04/2013 5:32 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 31/03/2013, at 11:30 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Perhapse this is a bit better?
>>
>> "
>>
>> If multiple selected responses are available, the cache will need to choose one to use. When a selecting header has a known mechanism for doing so (e.g., qvalues on Accept and similar request headers), that mechanism SHOULD be used to eliminate unwanted responses; of the remainder, the most recent response (as determined by the Date header field) is used, as per Section 4.
>>
>> "
>>
>> Making it clear that Date mechanism still applies, but only after the negotiation filtering has been done. AFAIK that is how it always gets done in practice anyway.
> I'm OK with your intent, but upgrading the MAY to a SHOULD is going to make implementations non-conformant.

How? and which ones?

I would think upgrading it to MUST would make things non-conformant but 
SHOULD is not absolute.

Amos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email