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

Re: #167: Content-Location on 304 responses

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:23:45 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D7454728-0C38-4881-B5EB-B2676A063553@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
I think so.

On 30/08/2009, at 6:52 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/167>
>> p6 2.4 Validation Model says:
>>> If a cache receives a successful response whose Content-Location  
>>> field matches that of an existing stored response for the same  
>>> Request-URI, whose entity-tag differs from that of the existing  
>>> stored response, and whose Date is more recent than that of the  
>>> existing response, the existing response SHOULD NOT be returned in  
>>> response to future requests and SHOULD be deleted from the cache.  
>>> [[anchor6: DISCUSS: Not sure if this is necessary.]]
>> The proposal is to remove this paragraph, because Content-Location- 
>> based selection isn't widely implemented.
>> Note that there's also discussion of adding more text to clarify  
>> when cached responses need to be replaced/update.
>> ...
> Proposed patch: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/167/167.diff 
> >.
> Question: does this need to be mentioned as change from RFC2616?
> BR, Julian

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 07:24:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:09 GMT