Subject: #440: max of max-age

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:11:11 +1000

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/440>

Bjoern,

Are you suggesting that we should change the max to 2**31-1?

If so, happy to discuss it (think it would be easy). I don't want to include text to rationalise it, though, as we don't do so elsewhere, and it really isn't necessary.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 07:26:54 +0200

* Mark Nottingham wrote:
>If so, happy to discuss it (think it would be easy). I don't want to 
>include text to rationalise it, though, as we don't do so elsewhere, and 
>it really isn't necessary.

I would not have commented if it was 2^31 - 1, but I am not suggesting
anything; for all I know the text could be using 2^31 because everyone
copied some bizarre bug back in the 1990s and now we are stuck with it.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:45:30 +1000

I had in mind that we'd introduced this text (probably because we introduced limits elsewhere), but I see that we didn't; it's from 2616.

OK, thanks.