W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Cache-Control private="...", no-cache="..." (was RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06)

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 22:03:48 -0500
To: "'Adrien de Croy'" <adrien@qbik.com>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01c9de77$c2553b90$46ffb2b0$@org>
Adrien de Croy wrote:

[snip]

> 1. private directive with headers.
> 
> It states that these headers then are all that is private, and these
> must not be stored. However it does not state what to do when you get a
> subsequent request for that URI that would match.  Does this mean that
> the stored response must be revalidated with the server, or is it
> appropriate to send the stored response (if still fresh) to the client
> without those headers?
> 
> 2. no-cache.
> 
> It's not clear to me what the point of revalidating an entire entry vs
> just revalidating header fields.  Especially when you consider that a
> conditional request will revalidate both or either.  So I can't see any
> point in having headers specified in a no-cache response directive.
> Unless it's intended that failure to revalidate just headers could
> still result in the entry being served, but that in that case those
> headers would need to be omitted?

I thought I had an explanation of how this could be useful, but my
explanation doesn't really jive with what the spec. says. I, too, would
really like to hear somebody explain how a cache is supposed to handle
private="header1, header2" and no-cache="header1, header2".

Regards,
Brian
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 03:04:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT