- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 14:27:16 -0800
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com, mogul@pa.dec.com
Paul Leach writes: > It seems pretty straightforward that if a proxy forwards a POST, and > gets back a Location: URI and Expires: or Cache-Control: headers that > say that the returned entity will be fresh for some period of time, it > should be able to serve that entity safely from the cache for that > period of time, for subsequent GETs, yes. For subsequent POSTs, not in general (because of side effects on the origin server). and do GET I-M-Ss on it after that time to determine if > it is still fresh. Maybe very few POSTs will do this, because most > POSTs are for dynamically generated content, but that doesn't affect > the correctness of the argument. Dynamically generated content can be cached. It's just hard to take advantage of that without a way for non-side-effecting POSTs to be serviced from a cache. > > A very similar argument applies to PUT. > > Paul > > Shel
Received on Thursday, 4 January 1996 22:44:02 UTC