- From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: ben@algroup.co.uk, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> But in the situation that is of interest, this is not a case > where the *end-client* doesn't understand the Warning (or else > it wouldn't be an issue). It's a case where a proxy *between* > two systems that understand Warning doesn't understand it. > So we're back to risking "undetected stale pages" in a situation > where we could, in fact, detect them. Which is what is the case always with HTTP/1.0 caches. An HTTP/1.1 cache upstream shouldn't be required to try to "fix" a downstream HTTP/1.0 cache (not that it's even able to, see my earlier scenario). 1.0 doesn't support stale data notification, period. If you have 1.0, you won't be notified, and you'll have to live with it, just like thus far. If you need notification, you need an all-1.1 proxy chain. But you don't want 1.1 behaviour to make 1.0 caches work more wrong, which is what would happen if a Warning header was sent to a 1.0 cache. Cheers, -- Ari Luotonen * * * Opinions my own, not Netscape's * * * Netscape Communications Corp. ari@netscape.com 501 East Middlefield Road http://home.netscape.com/people/ari/ Mountain View, CA 94043, USA Netscape Proxy Server Development
Received on Thursday, 17 October 1996 18:44:37 UTC