Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache?

On 09/22/2010 02:46 PM, Kinkie wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Alex Rousskov
> <rousskov_at_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.
Received on Wed Sep 22 2010 - 22:57:22 MDT