- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:57:12 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 07:57:56 UTC
On fre, 2008-11-14 at 19:11 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: > RFC2616 does not clearly define what the relationship of the request > method is to caching. In particular, does the method form part of the > cache key? As already discussed extensively: no. > If the method does not form part of the cache key, a cache can > effectively only be used to satisfy GET and HEAD requests, but a non- > GET/HEAD response could "populate" the cache if it had explicit expiry > information; e.g., a POST response could be used to satisfy a future > GET request (if the POST response were marked as explicitly cacheable). Yes. > If the method does form part of the cache key, any method (e.g., > OPTIONS, PROPFIND) could potentially be cached and returned in > response to future requests. Indeed. My proposal is to make the URI-only GET/HEAD cache model more explicit, so future protocol additions hopefully do not fall into the same trap of inventing new GET-type methods like WebDAV did.. Regards Henrik
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 07:57:56 UTC