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: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:38:36 -0500
Message-Id: <199712141738.MAA11397@devnix.agranat.com>
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, 'Scott Lawrence' <lawrence@agranat.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4955

>>>>> "DWM" == David W Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> writes:

DWM> 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,

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

  I think that we don't need to worry about the case of preserving
  cachability in shared caches of a digest-authenticated response;
  because of the nonce it just can't be done (and I don't think that
  we would want that changed - as an origin server I can't trust the
  proxy anyway).

  The goal is to allow the athenticated message to pass through the
  proxy uncorrupted - that's all.

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Sunday, 14 December 1997 09:54:07 UTC

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