I agree that there should be some *opaque* string used to select if the object is the same or not (string which could be for instance a last modified date, an MD5 digest,... whatever the server wants) And the client could for instance blindy use what the server sent as Content-Digest: (for instance, but we could use a different name if that one is 'burned' ;-) ) I would recommend against using the Content-Digest as the cache-authenticator. This means that if a server wants to control caching, it is forced to generate a Content-Digest that is also semantically correct for whatever other uses a Content-Digest is useful for. In short, Content-Digest is NOT opaque to the client. It also means that the server must either re-digestify the object to do a validity check, or keep a database of Digest values. If the server wants to use a simpler scheme (such as file modification time) to generate a validator, it should be able to do so. -JeffReceived on Tuesday, 14 November 1995 12:07:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC