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

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <53C652A09719C54DA24741D0157CB2695FF997 at TFPRDEXS1.tf1.groupetf1.fr>,
 "BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" writes:
>
>Yet http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/FAQ says "Varnish was written =
>from the ground up to be a high performance caching reverse proxy." =
>Varnish is a cache, and should follow HTTP/1.1 RFCs.

You're welcome to your opinion :-)

We belive we have good arguments for the choices we have made, and
as development continues, it is not inconceiveable that Varnish
might some time in the future grow a "act like an RFC2616 cache",
should somebody code the necessary changes or sponsor somebody
else to do so.

In the mean time, we try to get the maximum bang out of Varnish and
think we have made the correct call on this point.

One thing we have heard severalt times is that content providers
want to be able to use Cache-Control for client instructions and
not penalize their Varnish performance with its settings.

There is a draft floating around which defines a "Surrogate-Control"
along the lines of "Cache-Control" but it seems to have little
backing and even less use.

Poul-Henning

-- 
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.