- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 13:33:58 +0100 (MET)
- To: connolly@beach.w3.org (Daniel W. Connolly)
- Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com, koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
Daniel W. Connolly: > >In message <199512212354.XAA28495@wswiop05.win.tue.nl>, Koen Holtman writes: >> >>A web caching model must thus be built around the idea of an origin >>server _giving permission to caches_ to present an old response as >>something the origin server _would not mind saying now_. > >Right. We just need to agree on the term to express this. [....] >hmmm... how about the following terms, used to describe responses: > > original -- exactly what the origin server would say > fresh -- within the lifetime granted by the origin > server (or the client, since a request could > say "I'm happy with stuff less than 1 hour > out of date"). > stale -- not fresh. Not authentic. Protocol violation. I like these terms, I suggest we adopt them. [...] >Note that these describe responses, not entities. Yes. The 1.1 draft as it is now talks about caching of responses, not entities. Reading the "issues" list, I see we have yet to decide on whether it is responses or entities that get cached. My vote goes to responses, because 1) this is what is used now 2) it avoids us having to define what an entity is exactly. >Dan Koen.
Received on Friday, 22 December 1995 12:49:49 UTC