- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:19:01 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2616's definition of the no-cache response directive <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.9.1> says: > If the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent caching even by caches that have been configured to return stale responses to client requests. This is misleading, because of the fuzzy definition of 'cacheable' in 2616. Our current text is: > The no-cache response directive indicates that the response MUST > NOT be used to satisfy a subsequent request without successful > validation on the origin server. This allows an origin server to > prevent caching even by caches that have been configured to return > stale responses. I propose this clarification: """ The no-cache response directive indicates that the response MUST NOT be used to satisfy a subsequent request without successful validation on the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent a cache from using it to satisfy a request without contacting it, even by caches that have been configured to return stale responses. """ Thoughts? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 05:19:31 UTC