Support Cache-Control no-cache/private as per RFC2616 ?

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <53C652A09719C54DA24741D0157CB2695FF981 at TFPRDEXS1.tf1.groupetf1.fr>,
 "BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" writes:

>"If the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache 
>MUST NOT [...]

Varnish is not a cache in the RFC2616 sense.  It more of an extension
of the web-server, which is probably best thought of as "a webserver
that picks up its contents with HTTP".

Therefore, a lot of what RFC2616 has to say about caches do not
apply to Varnish.

The key distinction is that a RFC2616 cache is not under the content
providers control, so it must follow whatever intructions he gives
in the HTTP headers, whereas Varnish is under his control and he
therefore has other means of instruction (notably VCL).

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.