Re: RFC7234: Can a request body form part of a "cache key"?

It is impossible for me to imagine a use case where the body associated
with GET wouldn't have the same significance to caching as parameters
included on the URL. Hence, I believe this is a bug in the specification
and not a new requirement. To me this was an obvious requirement.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> 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!

Received on Thursday, 28 July 2016 17:29:56 UTC