W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: SPOOF issue (Was: Re: Rewrite of 13.12 (Cache keys))

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 00:29:46 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199605012229.AAA07160@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jg@w3.org, klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
Larry Masinter:
>[Koen Holtman:]
>> Some people in the phone conference yesterday wanted such a mechanism,
>> though they did not explain, as far as I could tell, why they wanted
>> it, let alone why they wanted it in plain 1.1.  This mechanism is
>> certainly not needed as a content negotiation `hook'.
>
>One use for having a response invalidate cache entries would be to
>allow invalidations to be returned from "POST" requests. 

We could have consensus about a Content-Location allowing
invalidations.  Invalidations are not really part of the spoofing
issue.

[...]
>> There is _no consensus_ in the WG now, and there will likely be no
>> consensus in the next few weeks, about the need to include, into
>> plain 1.1, a mechanism by which the response for URI 1 can change or
>> create data cached for URI 2.
>
>Just a question before dropping this completely: is this something
>that web proxies do today?

As far as I know, proxies do not do such things today.   Maybe
Content-Location is used somewhere to help invalidating data, but as
far as I know, it is not used to change or create cached data.

> Does anyone have any data or examples?
>I just don't want to forget the "running code" part.
>
>Larry

Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 1996 15:46:05 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:59 EDT