- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 05:36:24 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:10:35PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hey Willy, > > Just responding to one bit from my perspective: > > > On 4 Nov 2020, at 2:35 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > > > non-cacheability of the > > method: what if a cache doesn't recognize the method and caches by > > default?). > > I don't see any evidence of caches doing that (I quickly checked all of the > caches covered by cache-tests.fyi). While new methods aren't introduced that > often, I don't think caches behave like that, because there are so many > uncacheable methods, and they get blamed for caching things incorrectly. Very possible indeed. In any case I think this hypothesis ought to be addressed, either by making sure the impact is low to null, or by figuring a graceful degradation mode, or any such thing. I would personally have thought that letting responses be cached based on cache-control could have been useful. Cheers, Willy
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2020 04:36:44 UTC