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

RE: repeat of a comment from a long time ago

From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 12:20:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199606031920.MAA16863@samba.amazon.com>
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>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/748
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).

Received on Monday, 3 June 1996 12:23:04 UTC

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