Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

normative reference to "key" spec #200

Closed
reschke opened this issue Jun 18, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

normative reference to "key" spec #200

reschke opened this issue Jun 18, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@reschke
Copy link
Contributor

reschke commented Jun 18, 2016

The reference to draft-ietf-httpbis-key-01 is currently marked "normative, yet:

"FYI - I've marked the status of the Key draft as "Parked."

As discussed in B-A, while we have a few small issues on this draft, we really need implementation experience and feedback to validate the design.

If you are implementing Key or plan to, please do bring your thoughts to the WG." -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016AprJun/0295.html

If the reference stays normative, this spec will be hold up until the key spec is ready, too.

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Jun 19, 2016

Good question. The most relevant text in CH is:

When doing so, and if the resource is cacheable, the server MUST also emit a Vary response header field (Section 7.1.4 of [RFC7231]), and optionally Key ([I-D.ietf-httpbis-key]), to indicate which hints can affect the selected response and whether the selected response is appropriate for a later request.

Later:

Client Hints MAY be combined with Key ([I-D.ietf-httpbis-key]) to enable fine-grained control of the cache key for improved cache efficiency. For example, the server can return the following set of instructions

This feels more like informative than normative.

@igrigorik
Copy link
Member

Right, I'd argue the text is informative.. It's easy enough for me to change the reference to be marked as such. Is that sufficient?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants