Re: Cacheability of 421 (Misdirected Request)

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> I agree that with many use cases, having 421 be cacheable by default isn't
> very helpful, although it's easy enough to assure that it isn't cached
> (e.g., with Cache-Control: no-store).
>
> Does anyone else remember some more context around this?
>
>
If no where else, it was discussed briefly as part of this thread:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015AprJun/0480.html