Fw: HTTP 1.1 list update

Thanks Joe,
I've updated the xls file for 365,
how did you go on 356?
As far as 352 goes, I don't think we can mark it as does until all the other 14.9.x items are done.
I'll spit out the html and csv when I've had a quick refresh of the changelog in 2.4 now we're finalising 2.4.

I've copied this to squid-dev for the archive..
If any of you developers are putting fixes in for http/1.1 compliance please feel free to update the file & mail the list (or
preferably at this point) drop me a note and I'll update the file.

Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Cooper" <joe@swelltech.com>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 10:08 AM
Subject: HTTP 1.1 list update

>HTTP 1.1 list updateHey Robert,
>
>I was just looking over the HTTP 1.1 list you compiled with an eye
>towards anything that I might be able to tackle (small, and very easy,
>things ;-)
>
>Anyway, since I've become pretty familiar with the code in the area of
>handling uncacheable information and no-cache requests from clients:
>
> 365 MUST NOT 14.9.4 use a cached copy to respond to a request with
>cache-control: no-cache or Pragma: no-cache unknown
>
>This is definitely in recent 2.4HEAD. And I've backported it to
>2.2STABLE5 by adding one line. The relevant lines are in client_side.c
>in the clientInterpretRequestHeaders routine. As far as I can tell (in
>testing and by reading the code) Cache-Control:no-cache headers (as sent
>by IE 5.5SP1), and Pragma:no-cache (as sent by Netscape) are respected.
>
> 356 MUST NOT 14.9.1 use responses with cache-control: no-cache to
>satisfy other requests without successful revalidation unknown ie
>auto GET to IMS is allowed
>
>This would only take a couple of lines, I think, in the same routine
>mentioned above. I may try to figure this one out myself.
>
> 352 MUST 14.9 follow the cache-control header directives at all
>times unknown
>
>Looks like they're all there in the most recent 2.4, I don't know if the
>code is complete, but I will look deeper pretty soon. I know that
>no-cache is respected, and it looks pretty clear that private and
>no-store are as well. There is no backing code for no-transform, but
>everything at least has some functionality attached to it, so I assume
>all but no-transform is in there in some way, shape, or form (and maybe
>no-transform doesn't require anything of Squid since we don't do
>encoding yet).
>
>As I'm learning my way around the cache-control stuff, I'll let you know
>what I can confirm to be in Squid already, and I'll work on the ones I
>think I can manage myself.
> --
> Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
> Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
> http://www.swelltech.com
Received on Wed Jan 10 2001 - 06:19:52 MST