Re: Etag-on-write, 2nd attempt (== IETF draft 01)

Julian Reschke wrote:
> again: my understanding is that proxies are not allowed to cache the 
> response from a PUT, thus this isn't a problem.

I agree; you've quoted the relevant part of RFC2616.

But of course it should be possible, somehow.  Not least because we're
talking about applications that do cache what they PUT; the semantics
for proxies should be similar.

I can't help thinking that allowing a proxy to cache PUT when the
response contains Etag would make sense.  But that's at odds with your
proposal :)

But using another response header to tell a proxy it can cache the PUT
response would be just as good.

-- Jamie