"?> Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 from Poul-Henning Kamp on 2013-03-18 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2013)

W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:05:11 +0000
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
cc: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <35932.1363608311@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <em94119d23-43b0-4de4-a3e3-8c30e8a40bfc@bombed>, "Adrien W. de Croy" writes:

>>>for instance a cache receiving a request with If-Modified-Since later
>>>than its own Last-Modified, may presume the client has a later copy,=20
>>>and
>>>discard its own copy.
>>
>>Uhm, so you're saying I can clean the entire cache with bogos IMS
>>requests ?
>
>that's not the point.

It very much is:  A cache would have to be stupid to make that
assumption, and we should not be protecting stupid mistakes with
the specification, we should make things work.

No matter what you write in the specification, you will have IMS
headers with non-server-supplied timestamps, because it is possible
and there are legitimate use-cases.

We can discuss if the text expresses this optimally, but there is
no way the text can put this particular genie back in his bottle.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 12:05:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 18 March 2013 12:05:40 GMT