- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 00:29:46 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, jg@w3.org, klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
Larry Masinter: >[Koen Holtman:] >> Some people in the phone conference yesterday wanted such a mechanism, >> though they did not explain, as far as I could tell, why they wanted >> it, let alone why they wanted it in plain 1.1. This mechanism is >> certainly not needed as a content negotiation `hook'. > >One use for having a response invalidate cache entries would be to >allow invalidations to be returned from "POST" requests. We could have consensus about a Content-Location allowing invalidations. Invalidations are not really part of the spoofing issue. [...] >> There is _no consensus_ in the WG now, and there will likely be no >> consensus in the next few weeks, about the need to include, into >> plain 1.1, a mechanism by which the response for URI 1 can change or >> create data cached for URI 2. > >Just a question before dropping this completely: is this something >that web proxies do today? As far as I know, proxies do not do such things today. Maybe Content-Location is used somewhere to help invalidating data, but as far as I know, it is not used to change or create cached data. > Does anyone have any data or examples? >I just don't want to forget the "running code" part. > >Larry Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 1996 15:46:05 UTC