Varnish 5.0 changes to defaults

Kacper Wysocki kacperw at
Tue Dec 8 00:32:15 CET 2015

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Kristian Grønfeldt Sørensen
<ksorensen at> wrote:
> On 7 December 2015 at 15:05, Geoff Simmons <geoff at> wrote:
>> On 12/07/2015 02:30 PM, Rubén Romero wrote:
>> >
>> > While on the topic of changing defaults, I think we should include
>> > Surrogate-Control and ESI parsing in to the builtin VCL as
>> > discussed yesterday.
>> If we really want to do this, the tag might have to be something like
>> "ESI/Varnish" or "ESI/include&remove" or "VESI/x.y". (There's a
>> precedent for the latter -- Oracle Web Cache uses "ORAESI/x.y.z".)
> I would prefer if Varnish somehow advertised it's ESI capabilities by
> default. I don't really have an opinion on how exactly it should be done as
> long as we don't risk to break anything that correctly implements the full
> ESI spec . Any of your 3 suggestions would work for me personally.

Yes to this. It's a nice approach and might get more devs to use ESI
when it doesn't involve starting a whole ITIL supply chain to get ESI
Too much order is its own chaos.
Employ no technique to gain supreme enlightment.

More information about the varnish-dev mailing list