- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:19:08 +1100
- To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In a request? On 18/10/2010, at 11:17 AM, Eric J. Bowman wrote: > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 00:19:39 UTC