Subject: [core] RFC7252 - 5.10.7. Location-Path and Location-Query

From: Achim Kraus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 19:26:47 +0200

Hi List,

RFC 7252 - 5.10.7.  Location-Path and Location-Query

defines:

"A combination of these options is included in a 2.01 (Created) response."

and

"If a response with one or more Location-Path and/or Location-Query
Options passes through a cache that interprets these options and the
implied URI identifies one or more currently stored responses, those
entries MUST be marked as not fresh."

Does this imply, that the location MUST NOT be used with other response
codes?

Or COULD the location be used with other response codes? Does the
instruction to mark the entries as not fresh in the cache apply then?

best regards
Achim Kraus

---

From: Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 19:26:53 +0000

Hi Achim,

On 28/04/2020, 18:27, "Achim Kraus" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> RFC 7252 - 5.10.7.  Location-Path and Location-Query defines:
>

To me it means the semantic of location-*, including its impact on
caches, is only defined for 2.01.

> Or COULD the location be used with other response codes?

Sure, but one would have to specify somewhere what that means.

> Does the instruction to mark the entries as not fresh in the cache
> apply then?

It depends on what semantic one attaches to this new combination of
request method, response code and location-* options.  For example,
should we define this for redirections (similar to HTTP 3xx) I don't
think it would be the case.

cheers!
--

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:53:19 +0200

> On 2020-04-28, at 21:26, Thomas Fossati <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Achim,
> 

Agree.  Specifically, 2.01 means that the location pointed to is new, so that is what makes the cache invalidation useful; other uses might point to other kinds of locations.

> Sure, but one would have to specify somewhere what that means.

Yes.

> think it would be the case.

I hope that particular example never happens, but I agree with the principle.

Grüße, Carsten

PS.:

> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential 

I don't think so.

---

From: Achim Kraus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:12:39 +0200

Hi Thomas,
Hi Carsten,

thanks for your answers!

best regards
Achim