- From: Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:37:24 -0400
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 6/13/20 9:27 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 14/06/20 1:32 am, Ken Murchison wrote: >> All, >> >> I'm trying to verify my understanding of must-revalidate vs unqualified >> no-cache in responses per the text in Sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.3 >> respectively. Other than the point regarding the Authorization header >> field and must-revalidate, is the difference that unqualified no-cache >> requires validation for every request and must-revalidate only requires >> validation after the response has become stale? >> > The specification difference is exactly that yes. Thanks Amos. > In practice implementations (particularly older RFC2616 based ones) may > treat "no-cache" as if it were "no-store" and "must-revalidate" as if it > were unqualified "no-cache". So, given the possible ambiguity here, would a best practice for cacheable resources that should always be validated be for the origin server to return maxage: 0 or Expires in the past? -- Kenneth Murchison Senior Software Developer Fastmail US LLC
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2020 16:37:41 UTC