- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:18 +0200
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:00 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > Been reading the specs again, and in "RFC2616 13.1.1 Cache > Correctness" > the condition of receiving a newer response where a previous > response is > in the cache seems to be specified at only a MAY level, implying that > it's fine for the cache to keep the previous response as "current" for > as long as it's fresh. I could not find the corresponding section in > httpbis-p6. If it's really the intention that caches only MAY replace > the previous response with the newer response in the cache storage > then > there is also no need for the invalidation requirements in the HEAD or > caching of negotiated resources sections to be any stronger than a > MAY. Keep in mind that the "cache" may be seeded with a fixed content read-only memory or distribution device (firmware or CD-ROM) whose purpose is to keep the system working when there is no net. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 09:56:47 UTC