- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:41:24 -0800
- To: "'David W. Morris'" <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, 'Scott Lawrence' <lawrence@agranat.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> ---------- > From: David W. Morris[SMTP:dwm@xpasc.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 1997 9:06 PM > > I've not done enough homework to be sure this comment makes sense, but > it is reasonable for a document to expire, be revalidated and have a new > expiration applied. If the proxy can't merge in a new expires header then > either a new digest value or whole new copy of the entity would be > required. > Indeed, a proxy can not just "merge in" a new Expires header and have the digest check. So your conclusion is true -- it needs to get at least a new digest that corresponds to the changed Expires header value, and maybe a whole new copy of the entity. Paul
Received on Monday, 15 December 1997 09:44:00 UTC