- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:45:05 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@carenet.hu>
- Cc: rst@ai.mit.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Balint Nagy Endre: > >Robert S. Tau: [...] >> headers), it might be better to say something like the following >> (though it is admittedly wordier): >> >> When a cache makes a validating request to a server, and the server >> provides a 304 (Not Modified) response, the cache must construct a >> response to send to the requesting client. The cache uses the >> entity-body stored in the cache entry as the entity-body of the >> outgoing response. The entity-headers are formed as follows: >> >> If an end-to-end header was received with the 304 response, the >> cache MUST discard any existing cached header or headers of the same >> name, and replace them with the newly received headers. The cache >> retains all end-to-end headers which it has already cached, and which >> were not replaced by newer headers received with the 304 response. >> This new set of headers is then returned to the cache's client as >> the entity-headers of the outgoing response. The cache may add >> Warning headers (see section 14.45) to this set. >This is in sync with my understanding of the caching discussions, >and the only way to live with 1.0 servers. >I see no good reasons to handle 1.1 servers differently. Seconded. 14.4.3 is dangerously wrong. The text above is correct and reflects my understanding of the caching discussions. >Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu> Koen.
Received on Thursday, 30 May 1996 00:58:31 UTC