- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:19:12 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: "Moore, Jonathan" <jonathan_moore@comcast.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Good point.
>
> How about non-5xx status code?
Well, 405 or 413 should not trigger invalidation. We need 2xx plus status
code that are making an assertion about the state of the
possibly updated representation.
> On 25/07/2010, at 5:19 PM, Moore, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> By successful response, do you mean "received a response successfully"
>> or "received a response with a 2xx response code"? If the former, I
>> think I'd agree, but if the latter, there are definitely non-2xx
>> response codes that would still give an indication that a cached entry
>> wasn't valid anymore (for example, a 404).
>>
>> Jon
>> ........
>> Jon Moore
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:22 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>
>>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/235>
>>>
>>> Any objection to specifying that invalidation only happens upon a
>>> successful response (as opposed to any POST/PUT/DELETE/etc. response)?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Monday, 26 July 2010 09:19:20 UTC