W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI"

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 14:55:56 MDT
Message-Id: <9704162155.AA18690@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Drazen Kacar <dave@public.srce.hr> writes:

    I'm a bit confused with the proposed addition. I thought 
       
       Cache-Control: public
    
    would be enough, but that's not explicitly stated.
    
The "public" directive was intended for a different purpose.  From
RFC2068:

    public
      Indicates that the response is cachable by any cache, even if it
      would normally be non-cachable or cachable only within a
      non-shared cache. (See also Authorization, section 14.8, for
      additional details.)

While simply adding "Cache-control: public" to a response does
imply that it is cachable, this doesn't say enough.  I.e., how
long is the response "fresh"?  It seems more useful, in general,
to use
	Cache-control: max-age=3600
(or whatever), since this also implies cachability, but it also
gives more explicit information to the cache.

-Jeff
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 1997 15:07:02 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:34 EDT