Subject: Re: p6-caching: commentary from -05 to -06

From: Yves Lafon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:01:31 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>> 214 Transformation Applied is still a MUST which is a good thing.
>> However 110 Response is stale should be back to MUST instead of SHOULD, 
>> otherwise the client doesn't have a way to differentiate the response. (but 
>> I know that IRL it's almost never done).
>
> If the response is stale, shouldn't that be detectable regardless by 
> calculating its freshness lifetime and age independently?

If the Age and Expiration informations are present, and if the client 
implemented all the cache logic, instead of just having to trust an 
upstream cache. I agree that it is quite minor...

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:57:06 +1000

OK. I'd suggest that we can close #138 with p6-06, then.

On 07/04/2009, at 12:01 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:

>>> However 110 Response is stale should be back to MUST instead of  
>>> SHOULD, otherwise the client doesn't have a way to differentiate  
>>> the response. (but I know that IRL it's almost never done).
>>
>> If the response is stale, shouldn't that be detectable regardless  
>> by calculating its freshness lifetime and age independently?
>
> If the Age and Expiration informations are present, and if the  
> client implemented all the cache logic, instead of just having to  
> trust an upstream cache. I agree that it is quite minor...
>
> -- 

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/