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

Rename Cache header to Cache-Status #777

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Rename Cache header to Cache-Status #777

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ghedo
Copy link
Contributor

@ghedo ghedo commented Mar 11, 2019

Cache-Status seems to better describe the information this header carries
and is potentially less confusing. It also seems more consistent with other
Cache-related headers (e.g. Cache-Control).

FWIW, some variants of *-Cache-Control are also somewhat popular in the
wild, e.g. the NGINX caching guide [0] uses X-Cache-Status and Cloudflare
uses CF-Cache-Control (though I'm not sure popularity matters much, since
either way servers will need to be updated).

[0] https://www.nginx.com/blog/nginx-caching-guide/


@mnot As proposed a while ago on the mailing list https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2018JulSep/0318.html Happy to discuss this more in Prague.

Cache-Status seems to better describe the information this header carries
and is potentially less confusing. It also seems more consistent with other
Cache-related headers (e.g. Cache-Control).

FWIW, some variants of *-Cache-Control are also somewhat popular in the
wild, e.g. the NGINX caching guide [0] uses X-Cache-Status and Cloudflare
uses CF-Cache-Control (though I'm not sure popularity matters much, since
either way servers will need to be updated).

[0] https://www.nginx.com/blog/nginx-caching-guide/
@mnot mnot mentioned this pull request Mar 14, 2019
@OlliV
Copy link

OlliV commented Mar 28, 2019

I support the one that is already in the draft because I don't see how it could be misleading. X-Something-Cache but I don't think the popularity matters because everybody will need to do some adjustment if they want to go for this.

@wimleers
Copy link

The current name is also clear to me. Can you explain what you find confusing about Cache?

I think it can be argued that Cache-Status would be more confusing since this header effectively is a log of actions by intermediaries, it doesn't convey any status. At most, it helps explain the values of the HTTP response.

A strong potential reason I can see to rename this to Cache-Status is to convey this exists to provide cache debugging information just like Proxy-Status exists to provide proxy debugging information (Proxy-Status is in progress at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-proxy-status-00). Similarity in naming should then probably also imply similarity in structure though.

@PiotrSikora
Copy link
Contributor

@wimleers Cache[-Status] and now-adopted Proxy-Status both use parameterised list from draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure.

Now that Proxy-Status has been adopted by the WG, I'm also in favor of renaming Cache to Cache-Status.

@wimleers
Copy link

wimleers commented Jul 3, 2019

Thanks, then the last paragraph of my comment applies, so I now agree with renaming :)

@tfpauly
Copy link
Contributor

tfpauly commented Nov 21, 2019

Singapore: Already renamed, closing

@tfpauly tfpauly closed this Nov 21, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants