W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: questions, clarifications on 301 and 302 responses

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 17:30:43 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199509271630.RAA00749@wsooti07.win.tue.nl>
To: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Balint Nagy Endre:
>Hi all,
>I am thinking about *moved responses and cacheing.

>My questions on this topic, and suggested answers to them:

>1. are 301 (permanently moved) responses cacheable?
>Yes, [...]

I agree.  In my reading, the draft specs already say that they are.

>2. Is legal the use of expires and max-age in 302 responses?
>Yes, because both can express the desired time limit of the
>temporary move of the request-uri.

Just using the headers is always legal I believe, the question is what
clients should do with these headers if they get them.

>3. Is 302 response cacheable?
>Depends on answer to 2. My suggestion is:
>Cacheable, if expires or max-age present.

In my reading of the draft specs, 302 responses may not be cached.

I suggested earlier this year that an Expires header on a 302 response
could serve to allow caching of the response (until expired). I
remember that Henrik Frystyk Nielsen thought this was a good idea too.

>Are these ideas worth the effort to write down them as proposals?

I believe Roy has promised to add a complete overview of caching
issues to the next 1.1 draft, you may want to wait until that draft is
released before proposing anything new.  I would support you on the
above proposals if you make them.

>Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 1995 09:33:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC