- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 11:06:15 +1000
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11/05/2008, at 7:41 AM, Brian Smith wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Yeah. Anybody else want to weigh in pro or con on this? > > "In this context, an error is any situation which would result in a > 500, 502, 503 or 504 HTTP response status code being returned." > > It seems wrong to limit this to these four status codes. Why not > have the server indicate that stale responses are okay when it > returns the error response? In other words, instead of returning > stale-if-error=XXX on a successful response, it would return it in > the 5xx responses. Because the origin server isn't always the one that generates a 5xx; it may be an intermediary along the way (including one that the cache is implemented within). > Alternatively, allow the stale-if-error subfield to list the status > codes for which a stale response could be returned. That's way too complex, and serving a stale representation for a 4xx error doesn't really make any sense. > Also, I think that the specification needs to explicitly mention > that a warning should be added when a cache returns a stale response > due to a back-end error. I can add an e.g. (like in swr). Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 11 May 2008 01:06:51 UTC