- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 21:54:07 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 4, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Re-reading 2616, I think I agree (even if not entirely happy with it).
>
> Suggested rewrite:
>
> Index: p6-cache.xml
> ===================================================================
> --- p6-cache.xml (revision 1562)
> +++ p6-cache.xml (working copy)
> @@ -1484,12 +1484,12 @@
> using it to satisfy a request without contacting it, even by caches that
> have been configured to return stale responses.</t>
> <t>If the no-cache response directive specifies one or more field-names,
> - this requirement is limited to the field-values associated with the
> - listed response header fields. That is, a cache &MUST-NOT; send the
> - specified field-name(s) in the response to a subsequent request without successful
> - validation on the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent
> - the re-use of certain header fields in a response, while still allowing
> - caching of the rest of the response.</t>
> + then a cache MAY use the response to satisfy a subsequent request,
> + subject to any other restrictions on caching. However, the specified
> + field-name(s) &MUST-NOT; be sent in the response to a subsequent request
> + without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an
> + origin server to prevent the re-use of certain header fields in a
> + response, while still allowing caching of the rest of the response.</t>
I think you want to say
However, any header fields in the response that match the field-name(s)
listed &MUST-NOT; be sent in a response to a subsequent request
....Roy
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 05:54:36 UTC