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

CACHING editorial issue...

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:12:42 -0700
Message-Id: <9707281812.AA20029@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I asked Jeff to draft this, as I had trouble seeing what needed to be
done.  I'm forwarding it to the list in the attached message for archival
reasons.
				- Jim


attached mail follows:


    Is marked as needing an editorial clarification; I'm not quite sure what
    clarification is needed (I've read the underlying mail through),
    as there is a cross reference already to 14.45.

I think it might be clarified by replacing:

  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.

  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).

  4.

with

  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, origin server, and cache (see section 14.9); if the origin
     server so specifies, it is the freshness requirement of the origin
     server alone.

     If a stored response is not "fresh enough" by the most restrictive
     freshness requirement of both the client and the origin server, in
     carefully considered circumstances the cache may still return the
     response with the appropriate Warning header (see section 13.1.5
     and 14.45), unless such a response is prohibited (e.g., by a
     "no-store" cache-directive, or by a "no-cache"
     cache-request-directive; see section 14.9).

  3. 

(i.e., renumber item 4 as item 3).  I also included the word "origin"
before "server" in the first paragraph of item #2, to conform to our
normal terminology.

The point of this change is to conform to the language above this list,
which requires a response "which meets one of the following conditions"
(NOTE: the "which" should be a "that", according to Strunk & White),
and to make it clear that the use of a Warning is necessary in a case
where one of the parties is trying to relax the requirements imposed by
another one.  I.e., in the original itemization, some responses were
only legal if they met TWO of the conditions, not just one.

I'm still not sure this section is as clear as it could be, but
I think we risk reopening a blusterous debate if we try to rewrite
it again.

-Jeff
Received on Monday, 28 July 1997 11:20:02 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:49 EDT