Hi James, On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM, James Light <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I'm wondering what you mean by this? In what ways does varnish not > follow RFC 2616's recommendations / requirements for an HTTP cache? We're a "surrogate cache" or, if you like, a web server with a HTTP backend. RFC2616 talks about forward proxies when it talks about caches and what is says isn't relevant for us. > Do you simply mean that this is because varnish is meant to be used in an > organization's internal infrastructure and that the RFC's language > about caching seems to be more in reference to downstream caches run > by third party organizations that are neither the client nor > associated with the organizations responsible for the original > content? > Yes. Content providers might have their content stumble onto a downstream forward proxy. I doubt it will stumble into a Varnish server without them knowing it. This has been discussed back and forth on the mailing list a couple of times. -- Per Buer Phone: +47 21 98 92 61 / Mobile: +47 958 39 117 / Skype: per.buer *Varnish makes websites fly!* Whitepapers <http://www.varnish-software.com/whitepapers> | Video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7t2Sp174eI> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/varnishsoftware>
_______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
