Support Cache-Control no-cache/private as per RFC2616 ?
mnot at yahoo-inc.com
Tue Nov 20 23:57:50 CET 2007
I brought up the same issue that the original posted did a while
back, only to be rebuffed in a similar manner.
I'd suggest that the problem here is one of terminology. Defining
what Varnish does using HTTP terms is at best murky, so extra care
needs to be taken so that users aren't misled (intentionally or not).
This situation is what caused the caching industry to start using the
term "surrogate" about six or seven years ago. See <http://
After some initial activity, interest waned, because the different
players couldn't come to any substantial agreement about what a
surrogate was, how to control it, etc.; the most substantial effort
was ESI, and as has been pointed out, it was pretty watered down.
Still, I think it's important to distinguish what Varnish does from a
"normal" HTTP cache, especially since most other "HTTP Accelerators"
and "reverse proxies" *do* conform to RFC2616 in most ways, because
they're usually based upon HTTP proxy caches, rather than written
from the ground up as a accelerator / surrogate.
On 2007/11/21, at 4:54 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> The only truly precise way to characterize varnish, IMO, is "A
> webserver that uses HTTP to get at its content".
This is a good characterisation. It would probably be more correct to
say "gateway" than "webserver", but most casual readers won't know
what that means.
Mark Nottingham mnot at yahoo-inc.com
More information about the varnish-dev