Re: Question for HTTP/1.1 cache implementors (both proxy & client caches)

>I.e., the specification for "community" could include,
>hypothetically, "an implementation that complies with the
>specification for the community directive SHOULD ignore the
>no-store directive if it appears together with the community
>directive."  Which means that the no-store directive, being
>ignored, would not take precedence over the max-age directive
>for "community-aware" implementations.

But the existing text already handles that situation as a
condition on the meaning of max-age, and the extension rules
already allow new extensions to modify the interpretation of
other cache-directives.

It seems to me that adding a further MUST requirement will just
raise the issue of which section has precedence, particularly since
implementing the extension mechanism itself is not a MUST requirement.
That is what I meant by a contradiction.

I think we both agree on what is desirable from the implementation,
but I think the existing text is less confusing than the proposed change.
Is there another alternative?

....Roy