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

Re: Rules for combining headers in a caching proxy...

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:45:05 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199605300745.JAA27821@wsooti14.win.tue.nl>
To: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@carenet.hu>
Cc: rst@ai.mit.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/596
Balint Nagy Endre:
>Robert S. Tau:
>> headers), it might be better to say something like the following
>> (though it is admittedly wordier):
>>   When a cache makes a validating request to a server, and the server
>>   provides a 304 (Not Modified) response, the cache must construct a
>>   response to send to the requesting client.  The cache uses the
>>   entity-body stored in the cache entry as the entity-body of the
>>   outgoing response.  The entity-headers are formed as follows:
>>   If an end-to-end header was received with the 304 response, the
>>   cache MUST discard any existing cached header or headers of the same
>>   name, and replace them with the newly received headers.  The cache
>>   retains all end-to-end headers which it has already cached, and which
>>   were not replaced by newer headers received with the 304 response.
>>   This new set of headers is then returned to the cache's client as
>>   the entity-headers of the outgoing response.  The cache may add
>>   Warning headers (see section 14.45) to this set.

>This is in sync with my understanding of the caching discussions,
>and the only way to live with 1.0 servers.
>I see no good reasons to handle 1.1 servers differently.

Seconded.  14.4.3 is dangerously wrong.  The text above is correct and
reflects my understanding of the caching discussions.

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

Received on Thursday, 30 May 1996 00:58:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC