W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

RE: What are "appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields"

From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 10:37:02 +0200
To: Nicolas Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1273826222.7134.17.camel@localhost.localdomain>
ons 2009-11-11 klockan 16:31 -0300 skrev Nicolas Alvarez:

> Quote RFC3229 section 5.5:

Would be interesting to know what scenario this refers to:

   Warning to origin server implementors: it does not suffice to send

      Vary: If-None-Match, A-IM

   in status-226 responses.  We have discovered at least one scenario
   where this does not prevent a proxy cache that does not implement IM
   and A-IM from incorrectly "validating" a cached 226 response.

A guess is that this is related to their idea that using Expires is not
a good method for telling HTTP/1.0 caches that this response is
incompatible with HTTP/1.0 cache rules even when HTTP/1.1 clearly states
that using Expires is the preferred method for indicating this to any
HTTP/1.0 implementations along the response path.

Any RFC3229 Delta Encoding in HTTP authors around on this list that care
to comment?

Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 08:37:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:53 UTC