W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching]

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 10:27:25 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55681.1304504845@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <8709120E-0FE0-46CB-8A47-06AAB3B25DB9@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri

>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

>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.
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:27:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:52 UTC