- From: Henry Sanders (Exchange) <henrysa@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:52:07 -0700
- To: "'Jeffrey Mogul'" <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "'http-caching@pa.dec.com'" <http-caching@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: "Paul Leach (ITG Exchange)" <paulle@msg.microsoft.com>
> Henry Sanders made an interesting suggestion to me -- what if we >made > max-age=0 always mandatory (same as proposed "must-validate", but >told > people to use max-age=1 when it was (barely) acceptable for >end-user > caches to violate it. > The suggestion stems from my view that max-age=0 means 'must revalidate' and that we should spec it that way. I'm not convinced that a client that would ignore max-age=0 spec'ed as 'must revalidate' wouldn't also ignore a 'must-revalidate' directive. 'Must-revalidate' strikes me a lot like those 'enforced by radar' notices on speed limit signs - if you're going to speed these probably won't bother you. The comment about max-age=1 was off the cuff and aimed at things that don't necessarily need absolute consistency but want frequent revalidation for hit counting or whatever. These services could specify some small but non-zero max-age and maybe get some small benefit from proxy caches. I agree that specifying different behavior for max-age=0 and max-age != 0 is not a good thing to do. Henry (praying his mail client doesn't screw up the format of this message) >
Received on Thursday, 11 April 1996 02:13:38 UTC