- From: Leif Hedstrom <leif@ogre.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:20:25 -0700
- To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On Oct 26, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: > > [as individual] > > FYI > > A new version of I-D, draft-mcmanus-immutable-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Patrick McManus and posted to the > IETF repository. Interesting. Couple of quick thoughts with my proxy-server hat on. 1) Many (most?) reverse proxy servers has features to ignore e.g. Cache-Control: max-age=0, or Cache-Control: no-cache from the clients. Not doing so would really open up some ugly rat holes for cache busting. [See the ATS configs below]. 2) As such, this new CC: immutable directive seems geared primarily towards user-agents and possibly for forward proxies? 3) I didn’t read particularly carefully, but would it make sense to specify exactly what headers a proxy would ignore in favor of CC: immutable? I’m thinking in my case, we’d honor a CC: immutable over some of our configuration options [again see below]. For 3), I believe most clients will send something like Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache correct when doing a “force” revalidate? I understand that this is UA specific, but if we are going to say something about this for intermediaries, maybe worth pointing this out? If so, what about Cache-Control: max-age=0? Cheers, — leif P.s Apache Traffic Server settings (defaults): CONFIG proxy.config.http.cache.ignore_client_no_cache INT 1 CONFIG proxy.config.http.cache.ignore_client_cc_max_age INT 1 P.P.s Yes, we know this violates the RFC :-).
Received on Monday, 7 November 2016 21:20:56 UTC