W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2005

does no-store request invalidate?

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:53:03 -0600
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1122396783.98738.76.camel@pail.measurement-factory.com>


	Responses to HTTP requests with "Cache-control: no-store" are not
cachable. Recently, we came across a cache that does not cache responses
to no-store requests but also does not invalidate an older cached entity
with the same URL. When future requests stop using no-store, the old
cached entity is served.

For example, the following happens in our test case:

  1. Client requests an entity A without using no-store.
  2. Cache proxies the transaction and caches the response (entity A).

  3. Client requests the same entity A using "Cache-control: no-store".
  4. Cache proxies the transaction and does NOT cache the response.

  5. Client requests the same entity A again, without using no-store.
  6. Cache serves the "old" entity A cached in step #2 above.

Does the cache violate the intent of RFC 2616 in step #6? If yes, should
that intent be made explicit (I cannot find any explicit rules
prohibiting the above behavior)? 

If no, should the cache check that response in step #4 does not indicate
that cached entity A is stale? I cannot find explicit rules requiring
that, but we do have similar rules about 304 and HEAD responses
invalidating older cached entities.

Thank you,

Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 16:56:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:39 UTC