W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:02:18 -0700
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4501B834-C925-4E79-A210-591B809D83F6@mnot.net>
To: Matthew Stock <stock@csgeeks.org>
I think we could accommodate range requests, but AFAICT interoperability isn't great there:
  https://cache-tests.fyi/#partial

Cheers,


> On 14 Jan 2019, at 1:57 pm, Matthew Stock <stock@csgeeks.org> wrote:
> 
> With regards to the cache status, has there been any discussion around range requests?  In particular, when the cache node has some of the requested range but has to go upstream for the rest, how is it represented?  My suggestion is to call it a HIT, and add a new parameter "partial".
> 
> Aside from that, I'm in support of adoption.
> 
> Matt
> 
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
> Hello HTTPBis,
> 
> In Bangkok, we had a presentation from Mark on a draft to define a standard Cache HTTP Response Header, that can be used to replace non-standard uses of the "X-Cache" header. The document can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-cache-header-00.
> 
> The response in the room was favorable to having the group work on this header, but we didn't have time (and hadn't had sufficient discussion) to do a formal call for adoption.
> 
> This email starts a request for feedback, and a call for adoption. Please reply to this email with your thoughts, and state whether or not you believe the group should adopt this document. Feedback is requested by Friday, January 25th.
> 
> Best,
> Tommy

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:02:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 January 2019 17:02:55 UTC