- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:07:18 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy T. Fielding: > >Ummm, is there some reason why an HTTP/1.1 user agent cannot tell >for itself whether or not a message is stale? Not as far as I can see. However, the warning code also gives potentially valuable information on _why_ the message is stale. This is why I prefer dealing with the problem when getting a warning out of a 1.0 proxy, not when sending one to it. The warning codes in the draft are: 10 Response is stale 11 Revalidation failed 12 Disconnected operation 13 Heuristic expiration 14 Transformation applied Note that warning 14 is not staleness-related, so whatever else we end up doing, we must not remove the 14 warnings when sending a response to a 1.0 proxy. [...] >As a separate issue, Warning is one of the headers that should be >listed as MUST be sent in a 304 response, I think you are right. I recall that we updated the rules for creating 304 (not modified) responses in a great hurry; we may have overlooked more than just the warning stuff. (Aside: I now suspect that the Alternates header caching rules I listed in the TCN draft are broken too because of similar 304 compatibility subtleties.) >.....Roy Koen.
Received on Friday, 18 October 1996 02:15:17 UTC