W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Expires header vs Vary header

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:05:50 -0700 (MST)
To: Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0312081303530.93213@measurement-factory.com>


Yes, of course, but Julian says everything works fine without the
Vary. I find it strange that a Vary header would prevent required
updates.  But it is still possible, of course. Sorry for not being
clear.

Alex.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

>     From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
>
>     I am not aware of such dependencies. I would have guessed that
>     Mozilla does not update Expires header when receiving a 304
>     response, but then it would probably not have worked without the
>     Vary either.
>
> If Mozilla is not updating the Expires header when it receives a 304
> response with a new value for that header (as in the example in
> Julian Reschke's message), then it is violating this MUST:
>
>    If a cache uses a received 304 response to update a cache entry,
>    the cache MUST update the entry to reflect any new field values
>    given in the response.
>
> in RFC2616 section 10.3.5 304 (Not Modified).  This is restated in
> more detail in section 13.5.3.
>
> -Jeff
>
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 15:07:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:25 GMT