- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 12:20:29 -0700
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, 'Shel Kaphan' <sjk@amazon.com>
Paul Leach writes: > I think it should say MUST, actually. Since we don't know anything about > what the new methods do, we don't know that it is safe to pass them > along. For example, they may require that something be done to the > contents of the cache in order to interact properly with other new > methods, or even with existing ones. > If something needs to be done to the contents of the cache, there are two cases I can think of: a) existing headers (cache-control, content-location, ...) provide sufficient control, or b) they don't. In case (a) I can't see a compelling reason to forbid user-extensibility, since nothing breaks. In case (b) the service in question might not work right, but that's their problem. They shouldn't be adding private extension methods that don't interact properly with caches. I don't see how the breakage can leak to other services. (I'm assuming the service has distributed some client software that uses extension methods known to it. This server would of course refuse to act on unrecognized methods from random clients). --Shel
Received on Monday, 3 June 1996 12:23:04 UTC