Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Identity of the proxy in the cache key #729

Closed
martinthomson opened this issue Feb 1, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #770
Closed

Identity of the proxy in the cache key #729

martinthomson opened this issue Feb 1, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #770

Comments

@martinthomson
Copy link
Contributor

This text says that a proxy doesn't store things like Proxy-Authenticate unless the cache key includes the proxy identity.

Header fields that are specific to a client's proxy configuration MUST NOT be stored, unless the cache incorporates the identity of the proxy into the cache key.

Should this be the identity of the proxy's client instead? Maybe the intent of this was to say that a proxy cache that uses authentication is prohibited from storing these header fields unless they might be valid when reused. But including the identity of the proxy (as opposed to the user of the proxy) could lead to these fields always being stored, because the proxy identity is probably the same for all its users.

The effect of including the identity of the client in the cache key would be to effectively make the responses containing these fields private, which works to ensure that different clients don't end up with bad authentication challenges being sent to them from cache. That might be OK.

That all said, caching something like Proxy-Authenticate and playing it back later seems like it might cause problems too, so maybe I'm missing something.

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Feb 2, 2021

This was written with the assumption that the cache was co-located with the client, not the proxy. Will see if I can make that more clear.

@mnot mnot self-assigned this Feb 2, 2021
@mnot mnot added the editorial label Feb 11, 2021
@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Feb 11, 2021

Discussed in Feb 21 interim; may need clarification.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants