IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> PRO> : HTTP vs. HTTP-lite; HTTP headers

Re: IPP> PRO> : HTTP vs. HTTP-lite; HTTP headers

Robert Herriot (robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM)
Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:26:58 -0700

At 04:08 PM 8/25/98 , Carl Kugler wrote:
>Bob Herriot wrote:
>> I wrote this language. My reasoning was that the sender of the request or response must include a header "Cache-control: no-cache" in order to prevent caching from occurring in various proxy servers. But an origin server (containing IPP support) should not support Cache-control because cache-control is intended for proxy servers.
>
>The HTTP/1.1 spec says "Responses to this method [POST] are not cachable, unless the response includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields". So I don't think the sender of the request or response must include a header "Cache-control: no-cache" in order to prevent caching from occurring.

Good point. I never could get many people to review the HTTP header section.
So there are probably other issues like this to find.

>
>Also, "Cache directives MUST be passed through by a proxy or gateway application, regardless of their significance to that application, since the directives might be applicable to all recipients along the request/response chain". So Cache-Control will be passed through proxy servers to an origin server containing IPP support.

Yes, I agree, but I assume that the orgin server can ignore the cache-control headers.
>
>What does "support" mean in this context?

By "support" I mean that the server should "understand" the header and its values. For cache-control, an origin server can ignore the "cache-control" header.

Bob Herriot
>
> -Carl
>
>-----
>Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/ipp/?start=4376
>Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/
>