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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:06:27 -0800
To: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9511131706.aa14374@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Simon said:

> Lou- the 205 response is not part of http/1.0 as described, and this can 
> lead to some caching confusion; if a 1.1 client is talking through a 1.0 
> proxy to a 1.1 client, and a partial fetch is done, it's possible to the 
> 1.0 proxy to keep a copy of the partial contents, yet not be aware that 
> the contents are bogus- the next client to do a fetch could end up with 
> partial data, yet not be aware of it.

That is not true of correct caching implementations.  A cache cannot
store responses with a status code other than 200 unless the response
include an Expires header (or, now, a Cache-Control header) which
indicates that the response is cachable.

....Roy
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 17:18:06 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:35 EDT