On 09/22/2010 02:46 PM, Kinkie wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Alex Rousskov
<rouss...@measurement-factory.com> 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.
Looks like my question was not clear. Let me try to rephrase:
Assume Squid received a regular request and cached (does not matter
where) the corresponding response. That request and that response had no
Cache-Control headers. Everything is fine and ordinary. Now comes a
second request for that cached object. The request has a "Cache-Control:
no-store" header. Can Squid satisfy that no-store request from the cache?
Thank you,
Alex.
