On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 13:32 +0200, Arturo Bernal wrote: > > Hi Oleg > > I completely agree with you on the point that there's no benefit in > being partially conformant to multiple RFCs. It is more reasonable > and effective for us to conform to either RFC 7234 or RFC 9111. > Therefore, I'll be reviewing the caching protocol specification to > ensure it is in accordance with RFC 9111. If any discrepancies or > issues are found during this review, I will promptly create a ticket > and address them accordingly. >
Hi Arturo Please use this ticket to keep track of your findings. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCLIENT-2277 Oleg > Arturo Bernal > > > On 21 May 2023, at 12:44 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > Yes, this is the case. There is no point being partially conformant > > to > > RFC 2616, RFC 7234 and RFC 9111. We should either conform to RFC > > 7234 > > or to RFC 9111 only. Given that I need go through the entire > > caching > > protocol specification anyway I thought I might as well use the > > latest > > revision. > > > > Please use RFC 9111 going forward, and if you have spare cycles > > help me > > make sure that our current implementation is also conformant. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
