On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Alex Rousskov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > One interpretation of RFC 2616 allows the proxy to serve hits when the > request contains "Cache-Control: no-store". Do you think such an > interpretation is valid? > > no-store > The purpose of the no-store directive is to prevent the > inadvertent release or retention of sensitive information (for > example, on backup tapes). The no-store directive applies to the > entire message, and MAY be sent either in a response or in a > request. If sent in a request, a cache MUST NOT store any part of > either this request or any response to it.
Hi, No; IMVHO it means that it can be stored in RAM, but not swapped out to a cache_dir. no-store => no-cache is a conservative (but valid) approximation. -- /kinkie
