Subject: [httpwg/http-extensions] client-hints requirement on "client MUST NOT process" headers needs better wording (#319)

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:29:48 -0700

Regarding 
```
   A client MAY speculatively evaluate the headers included in the
   informational response while waiting for the final response.  For
   example, a client may recognize the link header of type preload and
   start fetching the resource.  However, the evaluation MUST NOT affect
   how the final response is processed; the client must behave as if it
   had not seen the informational response.  A client MUST NOT process
   the headers included in the response as if they belonged to the
   informational response.
```
The requirement in the last sentence needs to be re-worded, since `process` includes parsing and the client is clearly parsing those header fields and using them.

-- 
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/319

---

From: HTTP issue updates <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:47:58 -0700

I would rewrite the paragraph as
```
   A client MAY speculatively evaluate the header fields included in
   the informational response while waiting for the final response.
   For example, a client might recognize a link header field of type
   preload and start fetching the indicated resource.  However, these
   fields only provide hints to the client; they do not replace the header
   fields on the final response. Aside from performance optimizations,
   such evaluation of the 103 response's header fields MUST NOT
   affect how the final response is processed. A client MUST NOT
   interpret the 103 response header fields as if they applied to the
   103 response itself (e.g., as metadata about the 103 response).
```

-- 
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/319#issuecomment-290750144