W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: ID for Immutable

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:46:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpzhzg3z=foGv3sO0VNCAjAkNvrjO=OerrHADfHf3yQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>

> > worth noting here that the refresh conditional-request path that
> immutable
> > impacts has never helped much with the corruption case.. it conditionally
> > verifies etags or l-m, but generally the corruption is in the message
> body
> > - most often truncation. so a 304 reply confirms to the client to keep
> > using the corrupted content anyhow..
> So on these case that heuristic that ignore immutable for
> "weakly framed content" does not help either. 304 reply
> still confirms to the client to keep using the corrupted content.

this was kind of my point - they are linked. so in cases of weakly framed
we eschew all conditional revalidations and that includes the special case
of immutable. The refresh happens non-conditionally.

I think the right document language is more along the lines of what martin
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2016 12:47:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 29 October 2016 12:47:07 UTC