W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: p6-caching: commentary from -05 to -06

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:01:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904060949040.9216@ubzre.j3.bet>
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>> 214 Transformation Applied is still a MUST which is a good thing.
>> However 110 Response is stale should be back to MUST instead of SHOULD, 
>> otherwise the client doesn't have a way to differentiate the response. (but 
>> I know that IRL it's almost never done).
>
> If the response is stale, shouldn't that be detectable regardless by 
> calculating its freshness lifetime and age independently?

If the Age and Expiration informations are present, and if the client 
implemented all the cache logic, instead of just having to trust an 
upstream cache. I agree that it is quite minor...

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 14:01:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT