W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2006

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

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:46:29 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20060914144629.GP942@mail.shareable.org>

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
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 14:46:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC