"Fowler, Brian" wrote: > I don't think mod_proxy does currently conform to RFC2616 in respect of > Cache-Control: no-cache="<directive>"
I just checked - a small note in my copy of RFC2616 says "not done
yet..."... doh...!
> The relevant part of the HTTP spec I think is
>
> no-cache
[snip]
> If the no-cache directive does specify one or more field-names, 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.
So which of the following two senarios is the correct behavior:
- If the header specified is not in the request, ignore that
Cache-Control header.
- If the header IS specified in the request, behave like Cache-Control:
max-age=0
OR
- If the header specified is not in the request, ignore that
Cache-Control header.
- If the header IS specified in the request, strip that header and
return the request with the header removed.
>From the text quoted above, either seem valid, or am I reading it
wrong...?
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
