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

RE: This is not "this is not a date"

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:06:01 -0800 (PST)
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, 'Scott Lawrence' <lawrence@agranat.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971213210039.24238C-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4951

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Paul Leach wrote:

> For HTTP that proved to be infeasible. Some fields really have to be
> modified by proxies. (Those could still be included in the Proxy-Auth,
> though... I hadn't thought of that, because the proxy auth was added
> later... but anyway...) The fields that _really_ have to be modifed can't be
> in the digest.  I see no compelling reason for L-M or Expires to be changed

I've not done enough homework to be sure this comment makes sense, but 
it is reasonable for a document to expire, be revalidated and have a new
expiration applied. If the proxy can't merge in a new expires header then
either a new digest value or whole new copy of the entity would be

Dave Morris
Received on Saturday, 13 December 1997 21:08:30 UTC

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