Re: Fwd: Does no-store in request imply no-cache?

• From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
• Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:17:17 -0600
• To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
• Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <20101017181717.302a1bb6.eric@bisonsystems.net>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> My inclination is to clarify "any response to it" so that a cache can
> use the same cached response to serve multiple requests with no-store
> in them (or not). 
> 

That doesn't make sense to me.  My understanding is that no-store has
the RFC 2068 meaning of no-cache, which allows the RFC 2616 meaning of
no-cache to be synonymous with must-revalidate while allowing specific
headers to be excluded.  Your suggestion for no-store would result in
the RFC 2068 semantics of no-cache being discontinued, as there would
be no way to prevent the response being written to nonvolatile storage,
a need which isn't met by the private directive (which allows user-
agents to store).

-Eric
 

Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 00:17:53 UTC