W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 08:57:19 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CEB12F6C-AB9D-4C29-BE2F-6DDB71B46776@mnot.net>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>

On 03/06/2009, at 10:51 AM, Adrien de Croy wrote:

> so when the language mentions invalidation of a cache entry, it  
> doesn't necessarily mean deletion from the cache, purely flagging it  
> as requiring revalidation?

 From 2616, section 13.10:
> In this section, the phrase "invalidate an entity" means that the  
> cache will either remove all instances of that entity from its  
> storage, or will mark these as "invalid" and in need of a mandatory  
> revalidation before they can be returned in response to a subsequent  
> request

>> Good question. My experience is that this isn't implemented, and  
>> that caches just ignore the extensions and treat them as bare  
>> private and no-cache, respectively. Anybody else?
> my reading is that a private with headers is more like a public,  
> since it means only those headers are private.  So to treat it as  
> private whilst being safe (in that it won't cache any part of the  
> resource), won't also be optimal in terms of cache efficiency.

Of course, but that's an implementation decision. A cache isn't  
required to be maximally efficient :)


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 22:58:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC