- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:54:57 -0600
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
On 07/28/2016 10:18 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2016-07-28 18:07, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On 07/28/2016 01:00 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 2016-07-28 01:26, Alex Rousskov wrote: >>>> On 07/27/2016 03:37 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>>> On 2016-07-27 22:56, Adrien de Croy wrote: >>>>>> maybe need something like >>>>>> >>>>>> Vary: Request-Body >>>>> I'd say this is implied anyway. >>>> RFC 7231 appears to imply the opposite: It explicitly allows GET >>>> requests with bodies while not placing any request-body-related >>>> restrictions on their response cachability and sharing AFAICT. >>> I don't see how this means that you could ignore the body should you >>> decide to cache it. >> What is not prohibited is allowed. If caching a GET response while >> paying no attention to the GET request body is not prohibited, then it >> is allowed. If it is allowed, then "Vary: Request-Body" is not implied >> in the GET transaction context. > Then I'd say we should open a bug for RFC 7234bis. Yes, if you want to require something that was meant to be required but actually was not, then amending the protocol is the way to go. It may be difficult to justify that new requirement in this case though! Thank you, Alex.
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2016 16:55:40 UTC