- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 21:00:32 +0200
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2016-07-28 20:37, Alex Rousskov wrote: > ... >> The same applies to PROPFIND and SEARCH, but those methods are defined by >> other specs that are free to define semantics for the body. > > ... but regardless of how they define that semantics, if they want that > request body to affect cachability of the response, they have to use > standard HTTP mechanisms to do so. For example, if they want the "Vary: > Request-Body"-like semantics, they could require a combination of > Content-Checksum request header and a "Vary: Content-Checksum" response > header. > ... Alex, it's pretty clear that you're playing the role of the spec lawyer here. That's fine: it is needed to spot bugs in specs. That said: it *is* a bug in the spec if people can read it as caching a PROPFIND while ignoring the body will ever be meaningful. So let's open a ticket (will do tomorrow unless somebody is faster) and move on. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2016 19:01:02 UTC