Subject: [httpwg/http-extensions] Julian's feedback (#350)

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 22:08:09 -0700

> 2.1.  About Intermediaries
>
>  An immutable response has the same semantic meaning when received by
>  proxy clients as it does when received by User-Agent based clients.
>  Therefore proxies SHOULD skip conditionally revalidating fresh
>  responses containing the immutable extension unless there is a signal
>  from the client that a validation is necessary (e.g. a no-cache
>  Cache-Control request directive).

Maybe point to Section 5.2.1.4 of RFC 7234 here...

>  A proxy that uses immutable to bypass a conditional revalidation may
>  choose whether to reply with a 304 or 200 to its requesting client
>  based on the request headers the proxy received.

s/may/MAY/ or s/may/can/

> 2.2.  Example
>
>  Cache-Control: max-age=31536000, immutable

Maybe add a full example, including a request/response pair for the case when "immutable" is not present?

> 4.  IANA Considerations
>
>  [RFC7234] sections 7.1 and 7.1.2 require registration of the

s/[RFC7234] sections 7.1 and 7.1.2/Section 7.1 of .../

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/350