- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 22:03:48 -0500
- To: "'Adrien de Croy'" <adrien@qbik.com>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Adrien de Croy wrote: [snip] > 1. private directive with headers. > > It states that these headers then are all that is private, and these > must not be stored. However it does not state what to do when you get a > subsequent request for that URI that would match. Does this mean that > the stored response must be revalidated with the server, or is it > appropriate to send the stored response (if still fresh) to the client > without those headers? > > 2. no-cache. > > It's not clear to me what the point of revalidating an entire entry vs > just revalidating header fields. Especially when you consider that a > conditional request will revalidate both or either. So I can't see any > point in having headers specified in a no-cache response directive. > Unless it's intended that failure to revalidate just headers could > still result in the entry being served, but that in that case those > headers would need to be omitted? I thought I had an explanation of how this could be useful, but my explanation doesn't really jive with what the spec. says. I, too, would really like to hear somebody explain how a cache is supposed to handle private="header1, header2" and no-cache="header1, header2". Regards, Brian
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 03:04:24 UTC