Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation

On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:00 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> Been reading the specs again, and in "RFC2616 13.1.1 Cache  
> Correctness"
> the condition of receiving a newer response where a previous  
> response is
> in the cache seems to be specified at only a MAY level, implying that
> it's fine for the cache to keep the previous response as "current" for
> as long as it's fresh. I could not find the corresponding section in
> httpbis-p6. If it's really the intention that caches only MAY replace
> the previous response with the newer response in the cache storage  
> then
> there is also no need for the invalidation requirements in the HEAD or
> caching of negotiated resources sections to be any stronger than a  
> MAY.

Keep in mind that the "cache" may be seeded with a fixed content
read-only memory or distribution device (firmware or CD-ROM)
whose purpose is to keep the system working when there is no net.

....Roy