W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1996

Re: Data Integrity

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@merlot.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199602152239.OAA18305@merlot.arc.nasa.gov>
To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Cc: hardie@nic.nasa.gov, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Shel Kaplan writes: 
> I am not convinced anything extra really needs to be added.
> The only thing that seems open to question is what a cache (should/must/may)
> do with the response to a request with cache-control: no-cache (or reload).
> My assumption was that  the most reasonable thing for the cache to do
> would be to store the most recently received version of any document
> it receives, especially since one of the reasons for a forced reload
> would be to fix garbled data.  Maybe words to this effect belong in
> the spec somewhere.

Thanks for your explanation.  If we believe that proxies should reload
pages as they pass by (even if they have a copy they think is "good"),
then I suspect we should use cache-control: reload, rather than
cache-control: no-cache.  That language makes it clear enough that the
proxy will and should update its copy.  With cache-control: no cache,
an implementor might assume that the directive was to be used when the
user agent did not want integrity checks to be applied or did not want
the results of the request stored in that cache (some info might not be
appropriate for a public cache, for example).

				Ted Hardie
				NASA Science Internet
Received on Thursday, 15 February 1996 14:43:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:57 UTC