- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:02:18 -0700
- To: Matthew Stock <stock@csgeeks.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.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