W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0804171039170.5631-100000@egate.xpasc.com>


I think the assumption is that the reponse to the GET will
replace any earlier content in the cache. Why would an explicit statement
be needed?

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> ons 2008-04-16 klockan 18:58 -0700 skrev Mark Nottingham:
>
> > Can you give some examples? 4xx to a GET shouldn't invalidate the
> > cache, and a cache is allowed to return a cached response when
> > encountering a 5xx unless must-revalidate is present.
>
> I am not talking about error responses. I am talking about this text
> which currently is only specified for HEAD and not GET:
>
>    If the new field values
>    indicate that the cached entity differs from the current entity (as
>    would be indicated by a change in Content-Length, Content-MD5, ETag
>    or Last-Modified), then the cache MUST treat the cache entry as
>    stale.
>
> It's a equally good rule for GET as for HEAD, and having them aligned
> would help getting rid of cornercases such as the i23 question.
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 17:42:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:47 GMT