W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 2000

Re: Question for HTTP/1.1 cache implementors (both proxy & client caches)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:21:22 -0700
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-ID: <200004191821.aa00313@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu>
>I.e., the specification for "community" could include,
>hypothetically, "an implementation that complies with the
>specification for the community directive SHOULD ignore the
>no-store directive if it appears together with the community
>directive."  Which means that the no-store directive, being
>ignored, would not take precedence over the max-age directive
>for "community-aware" implementations.

But the existing text already handles that situation as a
condition on the meaning of max-age, and the extension rules
already allow new extensions to modify the interpretation of
other cache-directives.

It seems to me that adding a further MUST requirement will just
raise the issue of which section has precedence, particularly since
implementing the extension mechanism itself is not a MUST requirement.
That is what I meant by a contradiction.

I think we both agree on what is desirable from the implementation,
but I think the existing text is less confusing than the proposed change.
Is there another alternative?

Received on Thursday, 20 April 2000 02:22:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:24 UTC