- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:02:51 +0200
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2016-07-28 21:00, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 -> <https://github.com/httpwg/http11bis/issues/17> Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 29 July 2016 06:03:20 UTC