- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:37:14 +1000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 07/04/2011, at 7:35 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> In 3.3, >> >>> A server SHOULD NOT send Expires dates more than one year in the >>> future. >> >> Prose. > > Why this policy restriction ? > > Remove entirely ? Now <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/290>. >> In 3.4, >> >>> When the no-cache directive is present in a request message, a cache >>> SHOULD forward the request toward the origin server even if it has a >>> stored copy of what is being requested. >> >> Prose. > > Have you discussed the future of "Pragma:" before ? <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-14#section-3.4>: > This mechanism is deprecated; no new Pragma directives will be > defined in HTTP. > I would like to see the text say that if there is a "Cache-Control:" > header "Pragma:" MUST be ignored, to resolve the possible conflicts > between them. We already have: > A cache SHOULD treat "Pragma: no-cache" as if the client had sent > "Cache-Control: no-cache". so that makes them equivalent. Combined with the rules in sections 2.1 and 2.2, that *should* clarify correct behaviour when they occur together, I think. E.g., if something has both max-age and no-cache in the response, it might be stored, but won't be reused, because it violates the fourth bullet in section 2.2. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 02:37:41 UTC