Re: [weirds] feedback on draft-designteam-weirds-using-http

[Arturo Servin <[e-mail]>]

	A bit late in reading.

	I do not have a strong argument against keep it, so if it is better to remove it all, it is ok to me.

Regards,
.as

On 17 May 2012, at 16:07, Andy Newton wrote:

> Yeah. He also mentioned moving it to an appendix.
> I'm just trying to find a compromise.
> 
> -andy
> 
> On May 17, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> 
>> Isn't Julian suggesting that we not use the parameter-based approach at all?
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>> Behalf Of Andy Newton
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:56 PM
>>> To: Arturo Servin
>>> Cc: <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: Re: [weirds] feedback on draft-designteam-weirds-using-http
>>> 
>>> Arturo,
>>> 
>>> Would you mind us moving and describing the technique in an appendix
>>> without reserving a specific parameter?
>>> The technique would be to select a parameter unlikely to be used in the
>>> specification, such as "tenterhooksarekewl".
>>> 
>>> -andy
>>> 
>>> On May 17, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 	I found the solution interesting to deal with the problem using
>>> simple agents, but any decent agent should support adding this header.
>>>> 
>>>> 	Point taken.
>>>> 
>>>> .as
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 17 May 2012, at 14:22, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2012-05-17 19:16, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it is important to mention it. Otherwise you will end up
>>> with
>>>>>> different approaches to solve the problem for getting fresh
>>> information.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, the *right* way is to send Cache-Control.
>>>>> 
>>>>> "cache busting" using variations in the request-URI is just a hack
>>> that happens to work with broken caches.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards, Julian