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: Thu, 17 Apr 97 15:07:06 MDT
Message-Id: <9704172207.AA21701@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3095
I wrote:

> 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.

Drazen Kacar <dave@public.srce.hr> writes:

    What if freshness is infinite?

Then send something like
	Cache-control: max-age=99999999
which isn't exactly "infinite", but (at about 3 years) is close
enough for any realistic cache.

Received on Thursday, 17 April 1997 15:17:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC