- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:52:32 +1000
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
On 14/05/2010, at 7:02 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote: > ons 2010-03-03 klockan 16:47 +1100 skrev Mark Nottingham: >> I think we should: >> >> 1) Remove all reference to caching from the status code definitions in >> p2 (e.g., most of the 3xx, 410), relying on it to be covered by p6, >> and > > I'd recommend to keep a note in 206 & 304, mentioning that these can > only be cached as if they are a partial representation of a 200 > response. Caches not understanding 206 or 304 MUST NOT cache them. I don't see any harm in reinforcing that point. > As for the other status codes, expiry information (expires, max-age etc) > == cachable. A server sending expiry information on a response which it > does not intend to be cached is welcome to shoot itself in the foot. No > expiry information == heuristics if explicitly allowed otherwise > uncachable. > > Protocol extensions adding new status codes which changes the > interpretation of the response body need to think carefully, and make > sure appropriate Vary header is returned. That's the original position I took, but Roy convinced me that this wasn't workable. If someone wants to introduce another status code that's a partial representation (e.g., 226), Vary won't help them; hence the requirement that a cache understand a status code before storing it. Also, as Brian pointed out, 2616 already states that unrecognised status codes MUST NOT be cached. > Regarding storage, it's not the specifications job to define how caches > store responses, only how they react on subsequent requests when using > those earlier responses as input for satisfying the current request. > Only exception here is the no-store directive. The rules on invalidation > is at large separate from storage, with just one exception where a > certain cache invalidation requires the cache to then act as if it does > not have that response cached. What are you suggesting here? Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 24 May 2010 01:53:05 UTC