- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:29:40 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: mogul@pa.dec.com (Jeffrey Mogul)
- Cc: dwm@shell.portal.com, http-caching@pa.dec.com
Jeffrey Mogul: >This was discussed at the LA meeting, and is "fixed" in the current >draft I'm trying to finish. I've appended the relevant section below, >for people to comment on. (Comments requested; flames ignored.) [.....] > 12 "Caching may violate law" > SHOULD be sent with any response if the server is > aware of any law that specifically prohibits the > caching (including storage) of the response. I said it before (in http://weeble.lut.ac.uk/lists/http-caching/0243.html), and I repeat it now: this code is just plain silly. Does "any law that specifically prohibits the caching (including storage) of the response." include any laws made in China? The problem of violating law is one of the stickyest problems associated with internet traffic, and it won't be solved by just introducing one warning code at the http level. PICS may solve the problem, but something less flexible certainly won't. And worse, while not solving the problem, 12 "Caching may violate law" will give all the wrong signals to people who cannot be expected to know better. I'm disturebed by the fact that your discussion of the code does not even mention the problem of differring law in different parts of the world. I would agree to a "this code MAY be sent", but not to a "should", let alone to the requirement that you should also send along headers to disable caching. I can think of three points of view on the topic of putting "Caching may violate law" in the 1.1 spec: 1) Keep "Caching may violate law" text that was posted 2) Keep "Caching may violate law" text, but change SHOULDs into MAYs 3) Throw out "Caching may violate law" I strongly suggest that you request votes on this issue from the whole working group. My vote goes to 3). Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 1996 12:03:23 UTC