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

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.
no-store => no-cache is a conservative (but valid) approximation.

-- 
    /kinkie