gateway: clarify Last-Modified #470
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
SgtPooki
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2024
| - No matter if TTL value is known or not, implementations SHOULD always | ||
| send a [`Last-Modified`](#last-modified-response-header) header with the timestamp of the record resolution. | ||
| - Implementations MAY also place an lower bound of 1 minute to avoid excessive lookups. | ||
| - If TTL value is unknown, implementations MAY not send a `Cache-Control` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
May not?
Suggested change
| - If TTL value is unknown, implementations MAY not send a `Cache-Control` | |
| - If TTL value is unknown, implementations MAY send a `Cache-Control` |
Comment on lines
+435
to
+438
| When `Cache-Control` is not present, `Last-Modified` value also acts as a hint | ||
| for web browsers in a process called "Calculating Heuristic Freshness" | ||
| (Section 4.2.2 of :cite[rfc9111]). Each browser uses different heuristic, | ||
| making this an inferior, non-deterministic caching strategy. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is much more helpful for me.
| - No matter if TTL value is known or not, implementations SHOULD always | ||
| send a [`Last-Modified`](#last-modified-response-header) header with the timestamp of the record resolution. | ||
| - Implementations MAY also place an lower bound of 1 minute to avoid excessive lookups. | ||
| - If TTL value is unknown, implementations MAY not send a `Cache-Control` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
May not?
Suggested change
| - If TTL value is unknown, implementations MAY not send a `Cache-Control` | |
| - If TTL value is unknown, implementations MAY send a `Cache-Control` |
lidel
commented
Sep 6, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TODO: include information about optional modtime from UnixFS 1.5 (ipfs/boxo#659) and what takes priority on IPNS (modtime form dag-pb or ipns name resolution time)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #467 by updating
Last-Modifiedsection.We forgot to do that as part of TTL cleanup, and that created contradiction reported by @SgtPooki (thx!)