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: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:41:24 -0800
Message-Id: <5CEA8663F24DD111A96100805FFE6587203862@red-msg-51.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'David W. Morris'" <dwm@xpasc.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
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4959

> ----------
> From: 	David W. Morris[SMTP:dwm@xpasc.com]
> Sent: 	Saturday, December 13, 1997 9:06 PM
> 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
> required.
Indeed, a proxy can not just "merge in" a new Expires header and have the
digest check. So your conclusion is true -- it needs to get at least a new
digest that corresponds to the changed Expires header value, and maybe a
whole new copy of the entity.

Received on Monday, 15 December 1997 09:44:00 UTC

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