- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:06:01 -0800 (PST)
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, 'Scott Lawrence' <lawrence@agranat.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Paul Leach wrote: > For HTTP that proved to be infeasible. Some fields really have to be > modified by proxies. (Those could still be included in the Proxy-Auth, > though... I hadn't thought of that, because the proxy auth was added > later... but anyway...) The fields that _really_ have to be modifed can't be > in the digest. I see no compelling reason for L-M or Expires to be changed I've not done enough homework to be sure this comment makes sense, but it is reasonable for a document to expire, be revalidated and have a new expiration applied. If the proxy can't merge in a new expires header then either a new digest value or whole new copy of the entity would be required. Dave Morris
Received on Saturday, 13 December 1997 21:08:30 UTC