- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 23:52:24 PST
- To: mogul@pa.dec.com
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-caching@pa.dec.com
For what it is worth, I think the 'content negotiation' group is
primarily responsible for evaluating the variations on 'accept*:'
headers that have been proposed: how does the client say what it
wants.
The location headers (how does the server say what it sent in a way
that a caching proxy can know whether it can be reused) is a 'caching'
issue.
================================================================
To: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com
Subject: Re: rethinking caching
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 19 Dec 95 19:42:32 +0100." <199512191842.TAA01937@wsooti05.win.tue.nl>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:54:24 -0800
From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
>I have added "Spoofing using Location headers (prevention thereof?)"
>to my list of issues for the caching subgroup, although this is not
>a commitment that we will actually solve the problem.
For the record, I feel that the spoofing using Location headers issue
is really a sub-problem of content negotiation, not of caching.
If the content-negotiation subgroup can settle the issue, fine.
I'll keep it on our list of issues until we understand whether it
is our problem or not.
-Jeff
Received on Saturday, 23 December 1995 08:04:20 UTC