RE: NEW ISSUE: 13.1.2's Definition of 1xx Warn-Codes

Paul Leach said:
> If a client implements a cache, then it's a cache,

... but that does not stop it from being a client, and clients and caches have conflicting requirements (see previous messages in this thread) ...

> and it's the server side of the cache that adds the warn-code to the
> response.

Close, but no cigar. See section 1.3 (definitions of "cache," "proxy," and
"client") and my prior messages in this thread. There is no "server side" to
a cache, nor is there a "client side" to it -- at least, not defined by the
spec (implementation-wise there might be). A client that implements a cache
is not automatically a server, and a server that implements a cache is not
necessarily a client (though at first glance it might appear to have to be).
Note that it has to be this way, because if a cache had a "server" bit and a
"client" bit, there would be a circular reference (both the server and
client bits could implement a cache, which in turn would have their own
client/server bits, and so on down).

FWIW, your wording is more or less the terminology I used in my annotation
on how to interpret this clause; however, it's not a real solution to the
direct problem this clause is posing (i.e., bad phrasing and not saying what
it really means).



-- Travis

Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 21:09:15 UTC