W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: HTTP working group status & issues (please reply)

From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: Mike Meyer <mwm@contessa.phone.net>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960924164737.2551C-100000@jobe.shell.portal.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1621

On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Mike Meyer wrote:

> > the header suggestion (e.g. Idempotent: yes | no) has the benefit that
> > CGI scripts can include it as META tag [...] The problem, though, is that it
> > "begs" to be used for GET as well.
> This isn't a problem, this is a feature. I *want* to be able to tag
> the results of a GET as NOT being idempotent. Or can you provide a way
> to create a link (as opposed to a form submit button) that uses POST
> for data?

As I believe Jeffry Mogul has already presented, it would break the
assumptions of some very important caches if they can't assume idempotence
of GET. For a combination of performance and bandwidth conservation,
these caches assume a GET (w/o ?querypart) might be cached and 
forward the request 'up' thru a series of hierarichical caches. A
request known to not be idempotent is sent directly to the origin
server. This approach is used where the connectivity to the rest of
the world is very expensive and hence the Internet connection is 
bandwidth constrained.

Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 1996 18:05:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:20 UTC