- From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Ummm, is there some reason why an HTTP/1.1 user agent cannot tell > for itself whether or not a message is stale? After all, the > same information that made the proxy decide to add the Warning > header is still present in the cached message, and that information > can be interpreted by the HTTP/1.1 user agent just as easily as the > HTTP/1.1 proxy. Only the proxy knows its own configuration, which contributes to the decision of whether or not the proxy does an up-to-date check or not. The Warning header is the only means of telling the client of that fact. > BTW, that begs the question of why the client is being warned about > something that should be obvious from the Date, Age, and Expires/max-age? See above. The proxy has config parameters only known to itself, which affect the cache control policy. > As a separate issue, Warning is one of the headers that should be > listed as MUST be sent in a 304 response, with the lack of such a header > meaning remove any existing Warning messages from the cached entity. > That would settle the problem entirely, I think. Not, because HTTP/1.0 doesn't do any of that header wiggling stuff in the 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 18:55:15 UTC