- From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:56:09 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
ons 2010-05-19 klockan 15:09 -0700 skrev Roy T. Fielding: > I would prefer to remove the paragraph from the spec. It was not true when > it was added, it isn't true now, and it won't be true tomorrow. Partly agreed. I think it would be quite unexpected for a shared cache to enforce caching of such URLs by a expiry time set in the cache. I technically see no problem with using the general heuristics calculations based on Last-Modified. If a query response includes Last-Modified time then it should be safe to cache. The tricky query responses is those having neither an explicit expiry time or Last-Modified and there you can find both old and new web applications not expecting the response to get cached. But I do not have any data on how common such applications are, nor do I have data on how common it is to administratively configure caches to heuristically assign a freshness interval to responses without Last-Modified. But I also do think that practically nothing will break if this rule is removed from the specifications, and the HTTP world will adjust with little or no fuzz about it. The requirements on servers to clearly indicate when responses are not intended to be cached has been around for quite some time now, even long before the text in question was added. As Squid has already been mentioned I can note that current Squid implementation implements this 2616 rule purely in the recommended configuration of heuristic cache rules. The code as such do not make any distinction for query URLs. Regards Henrik
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 09:56:42 UTC