- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 15:54:38 +1000
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
OK, I've created http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/117 Henrik, could you identify the changes that need to happen in the drafts? Cheers, On 17/04/2008, at 6:28 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > ons 2008-04-16 klockan 18:58 -0700 skrev Mark Nottingham: > >> Can you give some examples? 4xx to a GET shouldn't invalidate the >> cache, and a cache is allowed to return a cached response when >> encountering a 5xx unless must-revalidate is present. > > I am not talking about error responses. I am talking about this text > which currently is only specified for HEAD and not GET: > > If the new field values > indicate that the cached entity differs from the current entity (as > would be indicated by a change in Content-Length, Content-MD5, ETag > or Last-Modified), then the cache MUST treat the cache entry as > stale. > > It's a equally good rule for GET as for HEAD, and having them aligned > would help getting rid of cornercases such as the i23 question. > >> In any case, I believe we can close this issue with no spec change; >> we >> may change text regarding cache invalidation separately. > > Yes. i23 requires no change. This is a separate but quite related > issue. > > Regards > Henrik > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 9 May 2008 05:55:15 UTC