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

Re: I-D Action:draft-nottingham-http-stale-if-error-01.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 08:09:42 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C7D50E9C-1201-4D16-85AC-483963E8B816@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>

This extension doesn't authorise serving stale content, it just hints  
that doing so is desired, and explicitly bounds it in time. Clarifying  
the "carefully controlled circumstances" may be in-scope for httpbis,  
but defining the extension for bounding it -- which, with my Yahoo hat  
on, we need -- isn't.

This is covered in the first sentences of the draft.

On 14/05/2008, at 3:33 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> Upon further review, I see no reason for this extension.
>>   In this context, an error is any situation which would result in a
>>   500, 502, 503 or 504 HTTP response status code being returned.
> 5xx errors are intended to authorize client-side workarounds,  
> including
> the delivery of stale content.  That is, in fact, the only real  
> difference
> between 4xx and 5xx codes.  If this needs to be clarified in the  
> httpbis
> drafts, then it should be an issue on httpbis.
> We don't need a cache-control option to authorize what should  
> already be
> authorized by the HTTP status code.
> ....Roy

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 22:10:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC