Re: This is not "this is not a date"
Scott Lawrence (lawrence@agranat.com)
Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:38:36 -0500
>>>>> "DWM" == David W Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> writes:
DWM> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Paul Leach wrote:
>> For HTTP that proved to be infeasible. Some fields really have to be
>> modified by proxies. (Those could still be included in the Proxy-Auth,
DWM> I've not done enough homework to be sure this comment makes sense, but
DWM> it is reasonable for a document to expire, be revalidated and have a new
DWM> expiration applied. If the proxy can't merge in a new expires header then
DWM> either a new digest value or whole new copy of the entity would be
DWM> required.
I think that we don't need to worry about the case of preserving
cachability in shared caches of a digest-authenticated response;
because of the nonce it just can't be done (and I don't think that
we would want that changed - as an origin server I can't trust the
proxy anyway).
The goal is to allow the athenticated message to pass through the
proxy uncorrupted - that's all.
--
Scott Lawrence EmWeb Embedded Server <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc. Engineering http://www.agranat.com/