Re: max-stale=0 forwarding
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 10:08 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote: Today, just request-side handling of Cache-Control: max-stale=0 (HttpHdrCc.c, 2.6-STABLE7+). If request's Cache-Control: max-stale has any positive value, Squid passes it through. Shouldn't the allowed range include 0 (delta-seconds := 1*DIGIT, and common usage)? It's meant to pass along whatever Cache-Control it gets unmodified. If max-stale=0 isn't forwarded properly then file a bug. However, max-stale=0 is somewhat of an odd thing as it's the same as not having max-stale at all: stale responses not accepted. So I guess the code utilizes this to differentiate the three states (no max-stale, max-stale, max-stale=NN) What clients is sending max-stale=0 btw? Can't remember seeing it.. Regards Henrik
Re: max-stale=0 forwarding
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi Henrik, 1. I'll file a bug. I have the patch for it too, of course 2. The client in the case we've run into seems to be a network device, a proxy or traffic-management server--google finds examples of other folks doing it 3. The current code is problematic because the spec has max-stale without a value equivalent to max-stale: (Infinity) Matt Henrik Nordstrom wrote: | | It's meant to pass along whatever Cache-Control it gets unmodified. If | max-stale=0 isn't forwarded properly then file a bug. | | However, max-stale=0 is somewhat of an odd thing as it's the same as not | having max-stale at all: stale responses not accepted. So I guess the | code utilizes this to differentiate the three states (no max-stale, | max-stale, max-stale=NN) | | What clients is sending max-stale=0 btw? Can't remember seeing it.. | | Regards | Henrik | - -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH5DOtJiSUUSaRdSURCGlrAJ9cqZgfP68qQIQsnwA5mNLhfSOq2QCfXp5r WaCWhFyWZyXdTNpFievdVhI= =9eOu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: max-stale=0 forwarding
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 18:16 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote: 3. The current code is problematic because the spec has max-stale without a value equivalent to max-stale: (Infinity) Oh, I thought it didn't forward max-stale=0 at all. Forwarding it as max-stale without a delta is defenitely a bug. The exact opposite of what the requester meant. Regards Henrik
Re: max-stale=0 forwarding
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 23:33 +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 18:16 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote: 3. The current code is problematic because the spec has max-stale without a value equivalent to max-stale: (Infinity) Oh, I thought it didn't forward max-stale=0 at all. Forwarding it as max-stale without a delta is defenitely a bug. The exact opposite of what the requester meant. Fixed. Regards Henrik
