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>

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, 27 April 2012 06:49:40 GMT