- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 14:41:01 +1100
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Re-reading 2616, I think I agree (even if not entirely happy with it).
Suggested rewrite:
Index: p6-cache.xml
===================================================================
--- p6-cache.xml (revision 1562)
+++ p6-cache.xml (working copy)
@@ -1484,12 +1484,12 @@
using it to satisfy a request without contacting it, even by caches that
have been configured to return stale responses.</t>
<t>If the no-cache response directive specifies one or more field-names,
- this requirement is limited to the field-values associated with the
- listed response header fields. That is, a cache &MUST-NOT; send the
- specified field-name(s) in the response to a subsequent request without successful
- validation on the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent
- the re-use of certain header fields in a response, while still allowing
- caching of the rest of the response.</t>
+ then a cache MAY use the response to satisfy a subsequent request,
+ subject to any other restrictions on caching. However, the specified
+ field-name(s) &MUST-NOT; be sent in the response to a subsequent request
+ without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an
+ origin server to prevent the re-use of certain header fields in a
+ response, while still allowing caching of the rest of the response.</t>
<t> <x:h>Note:</x:h> Most HTTP/1.0 caches will not recognize or obey
this directive. Also, no-cache response directives with field-names are
often handled by implementations as if an unqualified no-cache directive
On 03/03/2012, at 1:33 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> lör 2012-03-03 klockan 11:22 +1100 skrev Mark Nottingham:
>> So, it seems like we have three options:
>>
>> 1. leave it alone.
>>
>> 2. align the language in no-cache with that in private.
>>
>> 3. deprecate the semantics of these values (but still allow them syntactically).
>>
>>
>> Personally, I'm in favour of #3; I love using esoteric features of caching, but this one has never been useful IMO.
>
> They have good use for site tracking cookies. If sites start using them
> caches are likely to follow.
>
> My preference is 2 or maybe 1. Original 2616 wording in no-cache is not
> very confusing imho even if the validation part is practically nonsense.
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 03:41:28 UTC