Hello, 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, Alex.Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 16:56:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 June 2008 08:04:29 GMT