W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI"

From: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:48:26 +0100
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <8525647B.000A0771.00@mta2.lotus.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3069

Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

> I'm not sure that the HTTP/1.1 specification needs to say much more
> about this ... but since it apparently was not sufficiently clear
> to at least some readers, I'll propose an editorial change.

> I propose adding this to the end of section 13.9:
>    Note that some HTTP/1.0 cache operators have found that it is
>    dangerous to cache responses to requests for URLs including the
>    string "cgi-bin".  HTTP/1.1 caches should follow this practice
>    for responses that do not include an explicit expiration time.
>    HTTP/1.1 origin servers that want to allow caching of responses
>    for URLs including "?" or "cgi-bin" SHOULD include an explicit
>    expiration time.  Explicit expiration times may be specified
>    using Expires, or the max-age directive of Cache-Control, or
>    both.

I think CERN server is usually configured with "htbin" as CGI directory.
There are still a lot of them around. And people who switched from CERN
to something else probably kept htbin directory because all existing
pages pointed to it.

I'm a bit confused with the proposed addition. I thought

   Cache-Control: public

would be enough, but that's not explicitly stated.

 .-.   .-.    Life is a sexually transmitted disease.
(_  \ /  _)
     |        dave@srce.hr
     |        dave@fly.cc.fer.hr
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 1997 04:06:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC