- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:27:28 -0700
- To: "'masinter@parc.xerox.com'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, "'koen@win.tue.nl'" <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: "'fielding@avron.ics.uci.edu'" <fielding@avron.ics.uci.edu>, "'mogul@pa.dec.com'" <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "'http-caching@pa.dec.com'" <http-caching@pa.dec.com>
I like this better than max-age=0 and must-revalidate. A browsert that just obeys the max-age=0 can support the Cache-exception: 42 with 0 extra work. >---------- >From: koen@win.tue.nl[SMTP:koen@win.tue.nl] >Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 1996 12:32 PM >To: masinter@parc.xerox.com >Cc: fielding@avron.ics.uci.edu; koen@win.tue.nl; mogul@pa.dec.com; >http-caching@pa.dec.com >Subject: Re: Warning: header, need origin > >Larry Masinter: >> >>> must-revalidate is just a max-age=0 with a special warning attached. >>> If you want to trade must-revalidate for a Warning: header code with >>> the same semantics, I have no big problem. >> >>It seems that max-age=0 with a special warning attached is more >>general, if not more useful, than must-revalidate. > >>So what's the "special warning"? > >If we split the special warning off > > Cache-Control: must-revalidate > >we would get > > Cache-Control: max-age=0 > Warning: 42 Revalidation Essential > >or, if we rename Jeff's warning header because it can carry >prescriptive codes: > > Cache-Control: max-age=0 > Cache-Exception: 42 Revalidation Essential > >We would then get a definition like this: > > 42 Revalidation Essential > > Indicates that the revalidation of stale responses is essential > for the correct operation of the service offered by the origin > server. Service authors can generate this exception code along > with a "Cache-Control: max-age=0" header to warn that a failure to > revalidate a request on the entity could result in significantly > incorrect operation, such as incorrect reporting on the nature of > a financial transaction about to be executed. > > Proxy caches which fail to, or are unwilling to, revalidate a > response with this code MUST NOT return a stale response with a 13 > (?) (revalidation failed) exception code, but MUST return a 504 > (Gateway Timeout) error response. User agent caches failing to > revalidate a response with a 42 (Revalidation Essential) code MUST > also return a 504 (Gateway Timeout) error response. > > User agent caches which are configured to return stale responses > because of severe connectivity constraints SHOULD return a 504 > error response instead of a stale response with a 42 (Revalidation > Essential) code, but MAY also, if specifically configured to allow > this, return the stale response accompanied by a clear warning > that the service author cannot guarantee correct operation of the > service under these caching conditions. > >> Is there some risk that the warning >>would get ignored when 'must-revalidate' would not? > >I don't think so. I'd be happy with this being a special warning. > >Koen. >
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 1996 20:51:08 UTC