- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 20:30:33 +1000
- To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 04/05/2011, at 8:27 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <8709120E-0FE0-46CB-8A47-06AAB3B25DB9@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri > tes: > >> A couple of things come to mind. >> >> In requests, Pragma: no-cache is defined to be equivalent to CC: >> no-cache. I don't think we can change that now, as most implementations >> that I'm aware of honour that requirement, and more importantly, clients >> will have a reasonable expectation that this will continue. A gateway >> cache can choose to ignore request directives, because it has implicit >> permission from the origin, of course. > > But we can clarify that if there _also_ is a C-C, then Pragma is > ignored. Is your use case that you want to be able to send requests that CC-unaware HTTP/1.0 caches will pass through, and yet allow them to be pulled from cache by a CC-aware implementation? > >> Does that cover the cases you're concerned about, or are you arguing >> that CC: max-age (etc.) in requests overrides Pragma: no-cache? > > I am arguing that the most expressive and well defined header trumps > if both are present. > > If there is only Prama, follow it. If there is only C-C, follow it. > > If both are there, ignore Pragma. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:31:00 UTC