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

RE: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich....

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:45:01 -0800
Message-Id: <9711172245.AA02783@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4704

From: "Henry Sanders (Exchange)" <henrysa@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:37:33 -0800
To: "'jg@pa.dec.com'" <jg@pa.dec.com>
Subject: RE: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich....

Strictly speaking it only has to be caching proxies servers. If you're
going to cache you need to upgrade the request to the highest version
you support so that you can satisfy potentially higher level requests
(than the one that triggered the initial server fetch) from the cache
later. If you're not caching, you probably should upgrade, but it won't
really hurt if you don't. So caching proxies MUST upgrade, non-caching
proxies SHOULD (or MAY) upgrade, tunnels MUST NOT upgrade. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	jg@pa.dec.com [SMTP:jg@pa.dec.com]
> Sent:	Monday, November 17, 1997 2:27 PM
> To:	Henry Sanders (Exchange)
> Subject:	RE: RE-VERSION discussion at Munich....
> Proxy servers, or caching proxy servers?
> You didn't read my mail carefully :-), so now you get another one...
> Sorry about the duplicate, I blew the address...
> 			- Jim
Received on Monday, 17 November 1997 14:52:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC