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

Re: Cacheable response codes

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:59:09 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <52F0BD9E-F06A-4FF4-8289-C82CBA6A8F03@mnot.net>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
This is a leftover from issue #432; I've reopened - 
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/432#comment:5

Thanks!


On 23/10/2013, at 9:30 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>     I already reported a bug in the "cache" document: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/500 but now I see a similar problem in the "semantics" document.
> 
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24#page-48 reads:
> 
> Responses with status codes that are defined as cacheable by default (e.g., 200, 203, 206, 300, 301, and 410 in this specification)
> 
>     But if you go through the actual response codes, one by one, you will find the following are explicitly listed as cacheable: 200, 203, 204, 300, 301, 404, 405, 410, 414, 501.
> 
> 	 Are you sure no other response codes are cacheable?
> 	 Are you sure that all these response codes are cacheable?
> 	 Once we agree on a final list, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24#page-48 and http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/500 need to be updated with this information.
>     Can someone please open a bug report to track this work (I don't have permissions to do so)?
> 
> Thank you,
> Gili

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 23:59:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC