Re: [RFC] Have-Digest and duplicate transfer suppression

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Alex Rousskov
<rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 04:18 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> How is case B different to If-None-Match ?
>
> The origin server may not supply enough information for If-None-Match
> request to be possible OR it may lie when responding to If-None-Match
> requests.

The parent squid could handle the case when the origin lies though,
couldn't it ?
So:
client -> child -> parent -> origin
if client asks for url X, child has an old copy, child could add
If-None-Match, parent could detect that origin sends the same bytes
(presumably by spooling the entire response) and then satisfy the
If-None-Match, and child can give an unconditional reply to client,
which hadn't had the original bytes.

That doesn't help with the not-enough-information case, which is I
presume the lack of a strong validator.

So, perhaps we could consider this 'how can intermediaries add strong
validators' - if we do that, and then (in squid - no http standards
violation) - honour If-None-Match on those additional validators, it
seems like we'll get the functionality you want, it a slightly more
generic (and thus reusable) way ?

-Rob
Received on Wed Aug 10 2011 - 23:08:45 MDT