- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:20:36 +1000
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 23/06/2011, at 12:11 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > I was thinking that "non-error response" would be superior to > "successful response" in avoiding confusion, as the definition of the > 2xx status code class uses the word "successful" exclusively. Agreed. That gives us: """ A cache MUST invalidate the effective Request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]) as well as the URI(s) in the Location and Content-Location header fields (if present) when a non-error response to a request with an unsafe method is received. However, a cache MUST NOT invalidate a URI from a Location or Content-Location header field if the host part of that URI differs from the host part in the effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]). This helps prevent denial of service attacks. A cache SHOULD invalidate the effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]) when it receives a non-error response to a request with a method whose safety is unknown. Here, a non-error response is one with a 2xx or 3xx status code. """ -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 05:21:15 UTC