- 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>
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. >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