On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Mati wrote: > Our area of interests is ETag support in squid 3. > > During our tests with etag-patched squid 2.5 we discovered some > differences between squid's behavior and rfc2616... > > One of them is major. > > I would like to know whether this difference is based on some > considerations about nature of ETags and therefore should be ported to > squid 3, or not...
If there is a difference between RFC2616 and the ETag patch to 2.5 then what is said in RFC2616 is what should apply. > section 13.3.4 of rfc2616 states: > > "proxy, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a > Last-Modified date and one or more entity tags as cache validators, MUST > NOT return a locally cached response to the client unless that cached > response is consistent with all of the conditional header fields in the > request" > > We understand that if request has both If-Modified-Since and > If-None-Match, squid should return cached responce if the validation > holds true for both conditional headers. Yes. > But, patched squid 2.5 returns cached response if either of conditional > headers validates correctly... > > Is it correct? No, This is a bug. > Are there some other documents or opinions (beside rfc2616) justifying > this difference? No. Regards Henrik
