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

Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:34:10 +1000
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Message-Id: <A211E17D-31B2-4095-B240-BA7A7BC16E98@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Duane Wessels <wessels@packet-pushers.com>

On 25/07/2009, at 9:19 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> Making that decision on must-revalidate just feels odd to me as it's  
> not
> what must-revalidate is about. In all other aspects must-revalidate
> places further restrictions on the cache (shared & private), not
> enabling.


> Maybe we may change the implementation regarding s-maxage to implicit
> assume public when s-maxage is used as this is an explicit instruction
> for a shared cache which does not make sense to see on private  
> content.
> But it then begs the question if proxy-revalidate also means public,
> which it probably should do by the same reasoning.

Yes. My inclination here would be to make it as simple as possible,  
keeping in mind the behaviour of current implementations.

> Perhaps the intention actually was to use proxy-revalidate in that  
> text
> and not must-revalidate. If proxy-revalidate is substituted in that  
> text
> then it becomes coherent and makes some sense. But I do not know if  
> that
> was the intention as I was not around in the discussions then. I
> probably could have been but were not as I was not familiar with the
> workings of IETF then.

I had a quick look through the old caching list and didn't find  
anything, but this list's predecessor had a few relevant bits:




(still looking through these to draw my own conclusion)

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:34:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:50 UTC