Re: [squid-users] Cache-Control is ignored upon 202 (accept) response (re-post)

On 17/02/2014 12:47 a.m., Boaz Citrin wrote:
> Sorry, I confused between PUT and DELETE. Actually the DELETE is
> request doesn't invalidate the cache on 202 response.
> And this doesn't conform with the spec:
> "If a DELETE
> request passes through a cache that has one or more stored responses
> for the effective request URI, those stored responses will be
> invalidated"
>
> Any idea?

Are there Vary headers in the responses for the URL normally?

The DELETE invalidation process in Squid does not necessarily remove all
copies of variants.

Amos

>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>> On 16/02/2014 10:41 p.m., Boaz Citrin wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I want to invalidate the cache when my server returns 202 to a PUT
>>> request, however it seems like Squid ignores the Cache-Control when
>>> return code is 202.
>>
>> From the latest specification
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26#section-4.3.4
>>
>> "
>> Responses to the PUT method are not cacheable. If a successful PUT
>> request passes through a cache that has one or more stored responses
>> for the effective request URI, those stored responses will be
>> invalidated (see Section 4.4 of [Part6]).
>> "
>>
>>>
>>> Tried to set must-revalidate or even not to return any Cache-Control
>>> header but these all result no update to cache so subsequent GET
>>> request results HIT while I expect a MISS.
>>> Note that Vary header is not present in response.
>>>
>>> I am using 2.7.STABLE8 on Windows. No patch, just the installer from
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/squidwindowsmsi/
>>
>>
>> Your version of Squid is known to be only ~60% compliant with the
>> HTTP/1.1 specification and it seems this is possibly one of the missing
>> bits. Please consider an upgrade (sadly that means using a non-Windows
>> server for Squid).
>>
>> Amos
>>
Received on Tue Feb 18 2014 - 09:16:06 MST