Field names in cache-control header arguments

[mnot@…]

The discussion of optional field-names in "private" and "no-cache" is vague about whether the cache MAY or MUST revalidate when handling a subsequent request for that resource. That is, if another request for the resource comes in, and the cached response is still fresh, is the cache allowed to return it, minus the forbidden headers, or is it required to revalidate, and merge in new values of those headers from the 304 response?)

[mnot@…]

Proposal for Private:

... That is, a shared cache MUST NOT store the specified field-names(s), whereas it MAY store the remainder of the response message.

to

... That is, a shared cache MUST NOT store the specified field-names(s), whereas it MAY store the remainder of the response message (and subsequently reuse it).

I'm less clear about the right thing to do for the no-cache form. It might be good to consider deprecating it.

[julian.reschke@…]

See [1563]

[julian.reschke@…]

From [1564]:

Note changes for [1563] (see #337)