On 2007/02/11, at 8:14 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > I don't think clarification is needed unless we want to clarify > more in > detail when a 304 should be discarded by the 10.3.5 paragraph above. > > We are here in the area of how caches should behave when receiving > non-compliant responses. In this area cache implementers have three > choices > > a) Trust the response and blame the non-compliant origin server if > someone complains about the result. > > b) Discard the response and try again without the conditional as per > 10.3.5 paragraph above. > > c) Try to make something which makes sense out of the non-compliant > response. > > I think 'b' is what the RFC wants implementers to choose, but I also > think most will select 'c' for efficiency reasons and not sure > that's a > bad thing.. +1 The reason I wondered whether a clarification was necessary was because if an implementer reads 13.5.3, there's not a lot of wiggle room for this; it places a MUST on caches, whereas the requirement here (i.e. what to do with non-conformant responses) is only implied. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Saturday, 10 February 2007 21:45:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT