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

Re: Section 13

From: Donald Neal <d.neal@waikato.ac.nz>
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 13:13:18 +1300
To: ben@algroup.co.uk
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960505182534.349fc070@mail.waikato.ac.nz>
At 08:27 PM 3/06/96 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
[...]
>2.	It is "fresh enough" (see section 13.2). In the default case, 
>this means it meets the least restrictive freshness requirement of the 
>client, server, and cache (see section 14.9); if the origin-server so 
>specifies, it is the freshness requirement of the origin-server alone.
>
>This would appear to operate against the ability of the client to demand 
>a fresh copy (should it be the most restrictive, instead of the least 
>restrictive?)
>
>
>3.  It includes a warning if the freshness demand of the client or the 
>origin-server is violated (see section 13.1.5 and 14.45).
>
>If only one of the conditions must be met, when would this clause be 
>invoked? Or is this a license to ignore all freshness requirements so 
>long as a warning is given?

  Yes, it is a licence to do exactly that (as 13.1.5 says explicitly). The
result is that cache administration policy is set by the cache
administrator, not by the protocol spec., which is as it should be. There is
no absolute right for any end-user to override that policy.

- Donald Neal
--
Donald Neal                 | I've found that if you retire, you keel over.
Systems Programmer          |
The University of Waikato,  |                        - Alistair Cooke
Hamilton, NZ                |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 1996 18:15:10 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:02 EDT