W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: WGLC review of p2-semantics (editorial stuff)

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:28:05 +1300
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e80d64b61d316492b52176d187206dee@treenet.co.nz>
On 31.10.2012 00:19, Dan Winship wrote:
>> 5.3.6. CONNECT
> Though obvious, it seems like for consistency's sake, this should end
> with:
>    Responses to the CONNECT method are not cacheable.

It is not true though.

But a 3xx, 4xx, 5xx status response could be cacheable and desirably so 
to prevent constant hammering of a gateway some hops upstream of the 

>> 9.1.1. Procedure
>>    HTTP method registrations MUST include the following fields:
> Should "cacheability" be an explicit field (rather than just a
> required part of the specification text)?

We discussed that earlier and it was decided that cacheability depended 
on too many variables to set in stone like that. It is better to allow 
for conditions and special case descriptions in the method definition, 
even if it is "always cacheable" or "never cacheable" for many methods.

Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 22:28:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:07 UTC