- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:24:38 PDT
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I'm hoping we can resolve this soon, by widening the discussion from "Roy vs. Jeff" to a larger group. It would be very useful for HTTP/1.1 implementors to be explicit about their plans and expectations. Is there some "conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept (or expect)" possible compromise here? Comment from Ari: > --- > I much prefer Fielding's draft where all proxies that generate the > response from their cache must add an Age: header. > > I don't want to require *all* proxies, including non-caching ones, to > add the Age: header, which is what Mogul's draft suggests. Since it's > just tunneling it doesn't really add any information that the upstream > proxy wouldn't be able to derive from its network delay. Furthermore, > this wouldn't affect just non-caching proxies, but also requests that > we'd like to tunnel without caching in a caching proxy.
Received on Saturday, 27 September 1997 23:00:34 UTC