- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:34:10 +1000
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Duane Wessels <wessels@packet-pushers.com>
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/174> On 25/07/2009, at 9:19 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > Making that decision on must-revalidate just feels odd to me as it's > not > what must-revalidate is about. In all other aspects must-revalidate > places further restrictions on the cache (shared & private), not > enabling. Agreed. > Maybe we may change the implementation regarding s-maxage to implicit > assume public when s-maxage is used as this is an explicit instruction > for a shared cache which does not make sense to see on private > content. > But it then begs the question if proxy-revalidate also means public, > which it probably should do by the same reasoning. Yes. My inclination here would be to make it as simple as possible, keeping in mind the behaviour of current implementations. > Perhaps the intention actually was to use proxy-revalidate in that > text > and not must-revalidate. If proxy-revalidate is substituted in that > text > then it becomes coherent and makes some sense. But I do not know if > that > was the intention as I was not around in the discussions then. I > probably could have been but were not as I was not familiar with the > workings of IETF then. I had a quick look through the old caching list and didn't find anything, but this list's predecessor had a few relevant bits: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1996MayAug/0470.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1996MayAug/0473.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1996SepDec/0578.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1996SepDec/0582.html http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/draft-mogul-http-revalidate-01.txt http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1998MayAug/0133.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1998MayAug/0137.html (still looking through these to draw my own conclusion) -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:34:55 UTC