- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:15:19 -0500
- To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In Part 2, the definitions of 300, 301, 302, 303, 307, and 410 status codes explicitly state that they are cacheable. However, none of the other status codes state explicitly whether or not they are cacheable. Part 6, Section 2.1 (Response Cacheability) doesn't give any restrictions on storing a response a response based on its status code. By the way it is written, implicitly a response with any status code may be cached. I believe Part 6, Section 2.1 needs to be changed to add an extra requirement analogous to the requirement for method cacheability: ... * The request method is defined as being cacheable, and + * The response is cacheable according to the definition + of the response's status code, and ... Explicit statements in each cacheable status code's definition would need to be added as well. The following are always cacheable: 200, 203, 204, 205, 300, 301, 410. I think the following should be cacheable only when an appropriate Expires or Cache-Control are present: 302, 303, 307, 401, 403, 404, 405, 406, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505. I am not sure about the other status codes, but I believe that the following should probably never be cached: 201, 202, 305, 306, 402, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413, 415, 417. Regards, Brian
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 01:15:53 UTC