- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:23:45 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think so. On 30/08/2009, at 6:52 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/167> >> p6 2.4 Validation Model says: >>> If a cache receives a successful response whose Content-Location >>> field matches that of an existing stored response for the same >>> Request-URI, whose entity-tag differs from that of the existing >>> stored response, and whose Date is more recent than that of the >>> existing response, the existing response SHOULD NOT be returned in >>> response to future requests and SHOULD be deleted from the cache. >>> [[anchor6: DISCUSS: Not sure if this is necessary.]] >> The proposal is to remove this paragraph, because Content-Location- >> based selection isn't widely implemented. >> Note that there's also discussion of adding more text to clarify >> when cached responses need to be replaced/update. >> ... > > Proposed patch: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/167/167.diff > >. > > Question: does this need to be mentioned as change from RFC2616? > > BR, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 07:24:26 UTC