- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:02:33 -0700
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Finally, when RFC2616 is revised to move from Draft Standard
>to Full Standard, would anyone object to clarifying the language
>in 14.9.3? For example, replacing:
>
> The max-age directive on a response implies that the
> response is cacheable (i.e., "public") unless some other, more
> restrictive cache directive is also present.
>
>with
>
> The max-age directive on a response implies that the
> response is cacheable (i.e., "public") unless some other, more
> restrictive cache directive is also present. If a more
> restrictive cache directive (such as "no-cache" or "no-store")
> is present, the cache MUST ignore the max-age directive;
> this supports extensibility using the mechanism described
> in section 14.9.6.
>
>and perhaps also, under "s-maxage":
>
> If a more restrictive cache directive is present, the cache
> MUST ignore the s-maxage directive.
>
>for the same reason.
Wouldn't that become a contradiction with the extension scheme?
In other words, that requirement along with your example of
Cache-Control: no-store, community="UCI", max-age=30
would require that the recipient ignore max-age even if it did
understand the community extension. I think that is why we decided
to use relative constraints rather than absolute constraints in the
language above.
....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 16:04:30 UTC