You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Both state that a (depending on context private, shared or both types of) "cache MAY store the response and reuse it for later requests, even if the response would normally be non-cacheable".
To my understanding, this does not intend to override the requirements from the "Storing Responses in Caches" section (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-06#section-3) altogether. Instead, I would assume that it only refers to the condition "has a status code that is defined as heuristically cacheable" in that section (or, as it was stated in RFC7234, "has a status code that is defined as cacheable by default")?
Would it make sense to amend the list of conditions in that section, appending to the "the response either..." second-level list: "contains a private response directive if the cache is not shared"?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Restore some 2616 wording on public, must-revalidate, and proxy-revalidate
This ended up being an editorial change between drafts because the only normative changes were already noted for #264 and #268, and this is just rewording what we had for #161.
From https://www.w3.org/mid/9F36A6F8-0276-4F8C-B063-C4619901EBB1@webfactory.de:
Both state that a (depending on context private, shared or both types of) "cache MAY store the response and reuse it for later requests, even if the response would normally be non-cacheable".
To my understanding, this does not intend to override the requirements from the "Storing Responses in Caches" section (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-06#section-3) altogether. Instead, I would assume that it only refers to the condition "has a status code that is defined as heuristically cacheable" in that section (or, as it was stated in RFC7234, "has a status code that is defined as cacheable by default")?
Would it make sense to amend the list of conditions in that section, appending to the "the response either..." second-level list: "contains a private response directive if the cache is not shared"?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: