Um, who is "you" below? I think we have sorted this out, or else I have a bad mail connection outbound...
...BTW what you! say is spot on. Chuck On Friday, March 16, 2001, at 05:17 PM, Gabriel Russell wrote: > At 10:43 PM 3/14/2001 +0100, you wrote: > >This is something I am keen to sort out in the v2.0 mod_proxy - handling > >of dodgy or unreliable backend servers in a useful way. To do this > >though means doing some things that break HTTP/1.1, so they'll have to > >be special configuration options, and not the default. > > Are you sure they would break http/1.1? > Doesn't this section (13.1.1) possibly cover the dodgy backend server > situation? > > "If a stored response is not "fresh enough" by the most restrictive > freshness requirement of both the client and the origin server, in > carefully considered circumstances the cache MAY still return the response > with the appropriate Warning header (see section 13.1.5 and 14.46), unless > such a response is prohibited (e.g., by a "no-store" cache-directive, or by > a "no-cache" cache-request-directive; see section 14.9)." > > I'm not saying that there shouldn't be "special configuration options" for > these things, but I'm just not totally convinced that it would be breaking > http/1.1 > > - Gabriel > > > Chuck Murcko Topsail Group http://www.topsail.org/
