- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:16:51 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "John J. Barton" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>, Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, dave@scripting.com
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 05:02:09PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote: > > One of the issues I've been meaning to raise is that SOAP messages > > should have > > Cache-Control: no-store, no-tranform > > > > always appended in HTTP. However, this won't do any good for > > intermediaries that don't pay attention to them, for whatever reason. > > I also know that some will object to this for philosophical reasons. > > I object to both no-store and no-transform, but for practical reasons, > not for philosophical ones. > > Passing either instruction to a SOAP/HTTP intermediary is instructing > that intermediary not to transform or cache it, even if it knows about > SOAP. That means that headers can't be added, removed, modified, > etc.. > > (yes, this is presupposing a REST use of SOAP. A tunneled use would > ignore Cache-Control at the SOAP layer) Without going into REST/no-REST issues, I think these directives can be applied, as they would be considered advisory; if an intermediary has other knowledge with greater precedence (such as out-of-band configuration, or explicit targeting by a header) that it should perform an operation, it can. They're there more to protect from devices that would act without a specific directive, which is allowed by the HTTP. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 17:16:52 UTC