On 25/10/2016 6:35 p.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote: > > So, HEAD request _can_ be used as a reliable source for object > revalidation. How the 'can' should it be interpreted? RFC2119 [2] does > not specifies that. > > > AIUI, that exact case leaves two choices: > > * Implement something like 'revalidate_using_head [[!]acl] > * Contact Google and inform about the behavior > * or both would be better. For now I'm applying the tested patch. HEAD revalidation is a much larger project. > The former is RFC-compliant way to solve that particular case, but > requires costly development efforts and may be useless after some time. > The latter may break HEAD revalidation also, but gives hopes that the > GET conditionals may be fixed. > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.3.5 > [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
