[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RFC 7234

HTTPbis Working Group                                   R. Fielding, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Adobe
Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved)                         M. Nottingham, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Akamai
Expires: March 29, 2014                                  J. Reschke, Ed.
                                                              greenbytes
                                                      September 25, 2013


            Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching
                     draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-24

Abstract

   The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
   protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information
   systems.  This document defines requirements on HTTP caches and the
   associated header fields that control cache behavior or indicate
   cacheable response messages.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group
   mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.

   The current issues list is at
   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3> and related
   documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at
   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.

   The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix D.5.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."




Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Syntax Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       1.2.1.  Delta Seconds  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Overview of Cache Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Storing Responses in Caches  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Storing Incomplete Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Storing Responses to Authenticated Requests  . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Combining Partial Content  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Constructing Responses from Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Calculating Secondary Keys with Vary . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Freshness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.1.  Calculating Freshness Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.2.  Calculating Heuristic Freshness  . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.3.  Calculating Age  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.2.4.  Serving Stale Responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.3.  Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


       4.3.1.  Sending a Validation Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.3.2.  Handling a Received Validation Request . . . . . . . . 16
       4.3.3.  Handling a Validation Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       4.3.4.  Freshening Stored Responses upon Validation  . . . . . 18
       4.3.5.  Freshening Responses via HEAD  . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.4.  Invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.  Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.1.  Age  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.2.  Cache-Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       5.2.1.  Request Cache-Control Directives . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.2.2.  Response Cache-Control Directives  . . . . . . . . . . 23
       5.2.3.  Cache Control Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     5.3.  Expires  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     5.4.  Pragma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     5.5.  Warning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       5.5.1.  Warning: 110 - "Response is Stale" . . . . . . . . . . 30
       5.5.2.  Warning: 111 - "Revalidation Failed" . . . . . . . . . 31
       5.5.3.  Warning: 112 - "Disconnected Operation"  . . . . . . . 31
       5.5.4.  Warning: 113 - "Heuristic Expiration"  . . . . . . . . 31
       5.5.5.  Warning: 199 - "Miscellaneous Warning" . . . . . . . . 31
       5.5.6.  Warning: 214 - "Transformation Applied"  . . . . . . . 31
       5.5.7.  Warning: 299 - "Miscellaneous Persistent Warning"  . . 31
   6.  History Lists  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     7.1.  Cache Directive Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       7.1.1.  Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       7.1.2.  Considerations for New Cache Control Directives  . . . 32
       7.1.3.  Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     7.2.  Warn Code Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       7.2.1.  Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       7.2.2.  Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     7.3.  Header Field Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   Appendix B.  Imported ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   Appendix C.  Collected ABNF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   Appendix D.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
                publication)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
     D.1.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19 . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     D.2.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-20 . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     D.3.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-21 . . . . . . . . . . . 41
     D.4.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-22 . . . . . . . . . . . 41
     D.5.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-23 . . . . . . . . . . . 41
   Index  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


1.  Introduction

   HTTP is typically used for distributed information systems, where
   performance can be improved by the use of response caches.  This
   document defines aspects of HTTP/1.1 related to caching and reusing
   response messages.

   An HTTP cache is a local store of response messages and the subsystem
   that controls storage, retrieval, and deletion of messages in it.  A
   cache stores cacheable responses in order to reduce the response time
   and network bandwidth consumption on future, equivalent requests.
   Any client or server MAY employ a cache, though a cache cannot be
   used by a server that is acting as a tunnel.

   A shared cache is a cache that stores responses to be reused by more
   than one user; shared caches are usually (but not always) deployed as
   a part of an intermediary.  A private cache, in contrast, is
   dedicated to a single user.

   The goal of caching in HTTP/1.1 is to significantly improve
   performance by reusing a prior response message to satisfy a current
   request.  A stored response is considered "fresh", as defined in
   Section 4.2, if the response can be reused without "validation"
   (checking with the origin server to see if the cached response
   remains valid for this request).  A fresh response can therefore
   reduce both latency and network overhead each time it is reused.
   When a cached response is not fresh, it might still be reusable if it
   can be freshened by validation (Section 4.3) or if the origin is
   unavailable (Section 4.2.4).

1.1.  Conformance and Error Handling

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   Conformance criteria and considerations regarding error handling are
   defined in Section 2.5 of [Part1].

1.2.  Syntax Notation

   This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
   notation of [RFC5234] with the list rule extension defined in Section
   7 of [Part1].  Appendix B describes rules imported from other
   documents.  Appendix C shows the collected ABNF with the list rule
   expanded.





Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


1.2.1.  Delta Seconds

   The delta-seconds rule specifies a non-negative integer, representing
   time in seconds.

     delta-seconds  = 1*DIGIT

   If a cache receives a delta-seconds value larger than the largest
   positive integer it can represent, or if any of its subsequent
   calculations overflows, the cache MUST consider the value to be
   2147483648 (2^31).  A recipient parsing a delta-seconds value MUST
   use an arithmetic type of at least 31 bits of range, and a sender
   MUST NOT generate delta-seconds with a value greater than 2147483648.

2.  Overview of Cache Operation

   Proper cache operation preserves the semantics of HTTP transfers
   ([Part2]) while eliminating the transfer of information already held
   in the cache.  Although caching is an entirely OPTIONAL feature of
   HTTP, we assume that reusing the cached response is desirable and
   that such reuse is the default behavior when no requirement or local
   configuration prevents it.  Therefore, HTTP cache requirements are
   focused on preventing a cache from either storing a non-reusable
   response or reusing a stored response inappropriately, rather than
   mandating that caches always store and reuse particular responses.

   Each cache entry consists of a cache key and one or more HTTP
   responses corresponding to prior requests that used the same key.
   The most common form of cache entry is a successful result of a
   retrieval request: i.e., a 200 (OK) response to a GET request, which
   contains a representation of the resource identified by the request
   target (Section 4.3.1 of [Part2]).  However, it is also possible to
   cache permanent redirects, negative results (e.g., 404 (Not Found)),
   incomplete results (e.g., 206 (Partial Content)), and responses to
   methods other than GET if the method's definition allows such caching
   and defines something suitable for use as a cache key.

   The primary cache key consists of the request method and target URI.
   However, since HTTP caches in common use today are typically limited
   to caching responses to GET, many caches simply decline other methods
   and use only the URI as the primary cache key.

   If a request target is subject to content negotiation, its cache
   entry might consist of multiple stored responses, each differentiated
   by a secondary key for the values of the original request's selecting
   header fields (Section 4.1).





Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


3.  Storing Responses in Caches

   A cache MUST NOT store a response to any request, unless:

   o  The request method is understood by the cache and defined as being
      cacheable, and

   o  the response status code is understood by the cache, and

   o  the "no-store" cache directive (see Section 5.2) does not appear
      in request or response header fields, and

   o  the "private" cache response directive (see Section 5.2.2.6) does
      not appear in the response, if the cache is shared, and

   o  the Authorization header field (see Section 4.1 of [Part7]) does
      not appear in the request, if the cache is shared, unless the
      response explicitly allows it (see Section 3.2), and

   o  the response either:

      *  contains an Expires header field (see Section 5.3), or

      *  contains a max-age response cache directive (see
         Section 5.2.2.8), or

      *  contains a s-maxage response cache directive (see
         Section 5.2.2.9) and the cache is shared, or

      *  contains a Cache Control Extension (see Section 5.2.3) that
         allows it to be cached, or

      *  has a status code that is defined as cacheable (see
         Section 4.2.2), or

      *  contains a public response cache directive (see
         Section 5.2.2.5).

   Note that any of the requirements listed above can be overridden by a
   cache-control extension; see Section 5.2.3.

   In this context, a cache has "understood" a request method or a
   response status code if it recognizes it and implements all specified
   caching-related behavior.

   Note that, in normal operation, some caches will not store a response
   that has neither a cache validator nor an explicit expiration time,
   as such responses are not usually useful to store.  However, caches



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   are not prohibited from storing such responses.

3.1.  Storing Incomplete Responses

   A response message is considered complete when all of the octets
   indicated by the message framing ([Part1]) are received prior to the
   connection being closed.  If the request method is GET, the response
   status code is 200 (OK), and the entire response header section has
   been received, a cache MAY store an incomplete response message body
   if the cache entry is recorded as incomplete.  Likewise, a 206
   (Partial Content) response MAY be stored as if it were an incomplete
   200 (OK) cache entry.  However, a cache MUST NOT store incomplete or
   partial content responses if it does not support the Range and
   Content-Range header fields or if it does not understand the range
   units used in those fields.

   A cache MAY complete a stored incomplete response by making a
   subsequent range request ([Part5]) and combining the successful
   response with the stored entry, as defined in Section 3.3.  A cache
   MUST NOT use an incomplete response to answer requests unless the
   response has been made complete or the request is partial and
   specifies a range that is wholly within the incomplete response.  A
   cache MUST NOT send a partial response to a client without explicitly
   marking it as such using the 206 (Partial Content) status code.

3.2.  Storing Responses to Authenticated Requests

   A shared cache MUST NOT use a cached response to a request with an
   Authorization header field (Section 4.1 of [Part7]) to satisfy any
   subsequent request unless a cache directive that allows such
   responses to be stored is present in the response.

   In this specification, the following Cache-Control response
   directives (Section 5.2.2) have such an effect: must-revalidate,
   public, s-maxage.

   Note that cached responses that contain the "must-revalidate" and/or
   "s-maxage" response directives are not allowed to be served stale
   (Section 4.2.4) by shared caches.  In particular, a response with
   either "max-age=0, must-revalidate" or "s-maxage=0" cannot be used to
   satisfy a subsequent request without revalidating it on the origin
   server.

3.3.  Combining Partial Content

   A response might transfer only a partial representation if the
   connection closed prematurely or if the request used one or more
   Range specifiers ([Part5]).  After several such transfers, a cache



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   might have received several ranges of the same representation.  A
   cache MAY combine these ranges into a single stored response, and
   reuse that response to satisfy later requests, if they all share the
   same strong validator and the cache complies with the client
   requirements in Section 4.3 of [Part5].

   When combining the new response with one or more stored responses, a
   cache MUST:

   o  delete any Warning header fields in the stored response with warn-
      code 1xx (see Section 5.5);

   o  retain any Warning header fields in the stored response with warn-
      code 2xx; and,

   o  use other header fields provided in the new response, aside from
      Content-Range, to replace all instances of the corresponding
      header fields in the stored response.

4.  Constructing Responses from Caches

   When presented with a request, a cache MUST NOT reuse a stored
   response, unless:

   o  The presented effective request URI (Section 5.5 of [Part1]) and
      that of the stored response match, and

   o  the request method associated with the stored response allows it
      to be used for the presented request, and

   o  selecting header fields nominated by the stored response (if any)
      match those presented (see Section 4.1), and

   o  the presented request does not contain the no-cache pragma
      (Section 5.4), nor the no-cache cache directive (Section 5.2.1),
      unless the stored response is successfully validated
      (Section 4.3), and

   o  the stored response does not contain the no-cache cache directive
      (Section 5.2.2.2), unless it is successfully validated
      (Section 4.3), and

   o  the stored response is either:

      *  fresh (see Section 4.2), or

      *  allowed to be served stale (see Section 4.2.4), or




Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


      *  successfully validated (see Section 4.3).

   Note that any of the requirements listed above can be overridden by a
   cache-control extension; see Section 5.2.3.

   When a stored response is used to satisfy a request without
   validation, a cache MUST generate an Age header field (Section 5.1),
   replacing any present in the response with a value equal to the
   stored response's current_age; see Section 4.2.3.

   A cache MUST write through requests with methods that are unsafe
   (Section 4.2.1 of [Part2]) to the origin server; i.e., a cache is not
   allowed to generate a reply to such a request before having forwarded
   the request and having received a corresponding response.

   Also, note that unsafe requests might invalidate already stored
   responses; see Section 4.4.

   When more than one suitable response is stored, a cache MUST use the
   most recent response (as determined by the Date header field).  It
   can also forward the request with "Cache-Control: max-age=0" or
   "Cache-Control: no-cache" to disambiguate which response to use.

   A cache that does not have a clock available MUST NOT use stored
   responses without revalidating them upon every use.

4.1.  Calculating Secondary Keys with Vary

   When a cache receives a request that can be satisfied by a stored
   response that has a Vary header field (Section 7.1.4 of [Part2]), it
   MUST NOT use that response unless all of the selecting header fields
   nominated by the Vary header field match in both the original request
   (i.e., that associated with the stored response), and the presented
   request.

   The selecting header fields from two requests are defined to match if
   and only if those in the first request can be transformed to those in
   the second request by applying any of the following:

   o  adding or removing whitespace, where allowed in the header field's
      syntax

   o  combining multiple header fields with the same field name (see
      Section 3.2 of [Part1])

   o  normalizing both header field values in a way that is known to
      have identical semantics, according to the header field's
      specification (e.g., re-ordering field values when order is not



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


      significant; case-normalization, where values are defined to be
      case-insensitive)

   If (after any normalization that might take place) a header field is
   absent from a request, it can only match another request if it is
   also absent there.

   A Vary header field-value of "*" always fails to match.

   The stored response with matching selecting header fields is known as
   the selected response.

   If multiple selected responses are available (potentially including
   responses without a Vary header field), the cache will need to choose
   one to use.  When a selecting header field has a known mechanism for
   doing so (e.g., qvalues on Accept and similar request header fields),
   that mechanism MAY be used to select preferred responses; of the
   remainder, the most recent response (as determined by the Date header
   field) is used, as per Section 4.

   If no selected response is available, the cache cannot satisfy the
   presented request.  Typically, it is forwarded to the origin server
   in a (possibly conditional; see Section 4.3) request.

4.2.  Freshness

   A fresh response is one whose age has not yet exceeded its freshness
   lifetime.  Conversely, a stale response is one where it has.

   A response's freshness lifetime is the length of time between its
   generation by the origin server and its expiration time.  An explicit
   expiration time is the time at which the origin server intends that a
   stored response can no longer be used by a cache without further
   validation, whereas a heuristic expiration time is assigned by a
   cache when no explicit expiration time is available.

   A response's age is the time that has passed since it was generated
   by, or successfully validated with, the origin server.

   When a response is "fresh" in the cache, it can be used to satisfy
   subsequent requests without contacting the origin server, thereby
   improving efficiency.

   The primary mechanism for determining freshness is for an origin
   server to provide an explicit expiration time in the future, using
   either the Expires header field (Section 5.3) or the max-age response
   cache directive (Section 5.2.2.8).  Generally, origin servers will
   assign future explicit expiration times to responses in the belief



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   that the representation is not likely to change in a semantically
   significant way before the expiration time is reached.

   If an origin server wishes to force a cache to validate every
   request, it can assign an explicit expiration time in the past to
   indicate that the response is already stale.  Compliant caches will
   normally validate a stale cached response before reusing it for
   subsequent requests (see Section 4.2.4).

   Since origin servers do not always provide explicit expiration times,
   caches are also allowed to use a heuristic to determine an expiration
   time under certain circumstances (see Section 4.2.2).

   The calculation to determine if a response is fresh is:

      response_is_fresh = (freshness_lifetime > current_age)

   freshness_lifetime is defined in Section 4.2.1; current_age is
   defined in Section 4.2.3.

   Clients can send the max-age or min-fresh cache directives in a
   request to constrain or relax freshness calculations for the
   corresponding response (Section 5.2.1).

   When calculating freshness, to avoid common problems in date parsing:

   o  Although all date formats are specified to be case-sensitive, a
      cache recipient SHOULD match day, week, and timezone names case-
      insensitively.

   o  If a cache recipient's internal implementation of time has less
      resolution than the value of an HTTP-date, the recipient MUST
      internally represent a parsed Expires date as the nearest time
      equal to or earlier than the received value.

   o  A cache recipient MUST NOT allow local time zones to influence the
      calculation or comparison of an age or expiration time.

   o  A cache recipient SHOULD consider a date with a zone abbreviation
      other than GMT or UTC to be invalid for calculating expiration.

   Note that freshness applies only to cache operation; it cannot be
   used to force a user agent to refresh its display or reload a
   resource.  See Section 6 for an explanation of the difference between
   caches and history mechanisms.






Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


4.2.1.  Calculating Freshness Lifetime

   A cache can calculate the freshness lifetime (denoted as
   freshness_lifetime) of a response by using the first match of:

   o  If the cache is shared and the s-maxage response cache directive
      (Section 5.2.2.9) is present, use its value, or

   o  If the max-age response cache directive (Section 5.2.2.8) is
      present, use its value, or

   o  If the Expires response header field (Section 5.3) is present, use
      its value minus the value of the Date response header field, or

   o  Otherwise, no explicit expiration time is present in the response.
      A heuristic freshness lifetime might be applicable; see
      Section 4.2.2.

   Note that this calculation is not vulnerable to clock skew, since all
   of the information comes from the origin server.

   When there is more than one value present for a given directive
   (e.g., two Expires header fields, multiple Cache-Control: max-age
   directives), the directive's value is considered invalid.  Caches are
   encouraged to consider responses that have invalid freshness
   information to be stale.

4.2.2.  Calculating Heuristic Freshness

   Since origin servers do not always provide explicit expiration times,
   a cache MAY assign a heuristic expiration time when an explicit time
   is not specified, employing algorithms that use other header field
   values (such as the Last-Modified time) to estimate a plausible
   expiration time.  This specification does not provide specific
   algorithms, but does impose worst-case constraints on their results.

   A cache MUST NOT use heuristics to determine freshness when an
   explicit expiration time is present in the stored response.  Because
   of the requirements in Section 3, this means that, effectively,
   heuristics can only be used on responses without explicit freshness
   whose status codes are defined as cacheable, and responses without
   explicit freshness that have been marked as explicitly cacheable
   (e.g., with a "public" response cache directive).

   If the response has a Last-Modified header field (Section 2.2 of
   [Part4]), caches are encouraged to use a heuristic expiration value
   that is no more than some fraction of the interval since that time.
   A typical setting of this fraction might be 10%.



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   When a heuristic is used to calculate freshness lifetime, a cache
   SHOULD generate a Warning header field with a 113 warn-code (see
   Section 5.5.4) in the response if its current_age is more than 24
   hours and such a warning is not already present.

      Note: Section 13.9 of [RFC2616] prohibited caches from calculating
      heuristic freshness for URIs with query components (i.e., those
      containing '?').  In practice, this has not been widely
      implemented.  Therefore, origin servers are encouraged to send
      explicit directives (e.g., Cache-Control: no-cache) if they wish
      to preclude caching.

4.2.3.  Calculating Age

   The Age header field is used to convey an estimated age of the
   response message when obtained from a cache.  The Age field value is
   the cache's estimate of the number of seconds since the response was
   generated or validated by the origin server.  In essence, the Age
   value is the sum of the time that the response has been resident in
   each of the caches along the path from the origin server, plus the
   amount of time it has been in transit along network paths.

   The following data is used for the age calculation:

   age_value

      The term "age_value" denotes the value of the Age header field
      (Section 5.1), in a form appropriate for arithmetic operation; or
      0, if not available.

   date_value

      The term "date_value" denotes the value of the Date header field,
      in a form appropriate for arithmetic operations.  See Section
      7.1.1.2 of [Part2] for the definition of the Date header field,
      and for requirements regarding responses without it.

   now

      The term "now" means "the current value of the clock at the host
      performing the calculation".  A host ought to use NTP ([RFC1305])
      or some similar protocol to synchronize its clocks to Coordinated
      Universal Time.

   request_time

      The current value of the clock at the host at the time the request
      resulting in the stored response was made.



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   response_time

      The current value of the clock at the host at the time the
      response was received.

   A response's age can be calculated in two entirely independent ways:

   1.  the "apparent_age": response_time minus date_value, if the local
       clock is reasonably well synchronized to the origin server's
       clock.  If the result is negative, the result is replaced by
       zero.

   2.  the "corrected_age_value", if all of the caches along the
       response path implement HTTP/1.1.  A cache MUST interpret this
       value relative to the time the request was initiated, not the
       time that the response was received.


     apparent_age = max(0, response_time - date_value);

     response_delay = response_time - request_time;
     corrected_age_value = age_value + response_delay;

   These are combined as

     corrected_initial_age = max(apparent_age, corrected_age_value);

   unless the cache is confident in the value of the Age header field
   (e.g., because there are no HTTP/1.0 hops in the Via header field),
   in which case the corrected_age_value MAY be used as the
   corrected_initial_age.

   The current_age of a stored response can then be calculated by adding
   the amount of time (in seconds) since the stored response was last
   validated by the origin server to the corrected_initial_age.

     resident_time = now - response_time;
     current_age = corrected_initial_age + resident_time;

4.2.4.  Serving Stale Responses

   A "stale" response is one that either has explicit expiry information
   or is allowed to have heuristic expiry calculated, but is not fresh
   according to the calculations in Section 4.2.

   A cache MUST NOT generate a stale response if it is prohibited by an
   explicit in-protocol directive (e.g., by a "no-store" or "no-cache"
   cache directive, a "must-revalidate" cache-response-directive, or an



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   applicable "s-maxage" or "proxy-revalidate" cache-response-directive;
   see Section 5.2.2).

   A cache MUST NOT send stale responses unless it is disconnected
   (i.e., it cannot contact the origin server or otherwise find a
   forward path) or doing so is explicitly allowed (e.g., by the max-
   stale request directive; see Section 5.2.1).

   A cache SHOULD generate a Warning header field with the 110 warn-code
   (see Section 5.5.1) in stale responses.  Likewise, a cache SHOULD
   generate a 112 warn-code (see Section 5.5.3) in stale responses if
   the cache is disconnected.

   A cache SHOULD NOT generate a new Warning header field when
   forwarding a response that does not have an Age header field, even if
   the response is already stale.  A cache need not validate a response
   that merely became stale in transit.

4.3.  Validation

   When a cache has one or more stored responses for a requested URI,
   but cannot serve any of them (e.g., because they are not fresh, or
   one cannot be selected; see Section 4.1), it can use the conditional
   request mechanism [Part4] in the forwarded request to give the next
   inbound server an opportunity to select a valid stored response to
   use, updating the stored metadata in the process, or to replace the
   stored response(s) with a new response.  This process is known as
   "validating" or "revalidating" the stored response.

4.3.1.  Sending a Validation Request

   When sending a conditional request for cache validation, a cache
   sends one or more precondition header fields containing validator
   metadata from its stored response(s), which is then compared by
   recipients to determine whether a stored response is equivalent to a
   current representation of the resource.

   One such validator is the timestamp given in a Last-Modified header
   field (Section 2.2 of [Part4]), which can be used in an If-Modified-
   Since header field for response validation, or in an If-Unmodified-
   Since or If-Range header field for representation selection (i.e.,
   the client is referring specifically to a previously obtained
   representation with that timestamp).

   Another validator is the entity-tag given in an ETag header field
   (Section 2.3 of [Part4]).  One or more entity-tags, indicating one or
   more stored responses, can be used in an If-None-Match header field
   for response validation, or in an If-Match or If-Range header field



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   for representation selection (i.e., the client is referring
   specifically to one or more previously obtained representations with
   the listed entity-tags).

4.3.2.  Handling a Received Validation Request

   Each client in the request chain may have its own cache, so it is
   common for a cache at an intermediary to receive conditional requests
   from other (outbound) caches.  Likewise, some user agents make use of
   conditional requests to limit data transfers to recently modified
   representations or to complete the transfer of a partially retrieved
   representation.

   If a cache receives a request that can be satisfied by reusing one of
   its stored 200 (OK) or 206 (Partial Content) responses, the cache
   SHOULD evaluate any applicable conditional header field preconditions
   received in that request with respect to the corresponding validators
   contained within the selected response.  A cache MUST NOT evaluate
   conditional header fields that are only applicable to an origin
   server, found in a request with semantics that cannot be satisfied
   with a cached response, or applied to a target resource for which it
   has no stored responses; such preconditions are likely intended for
   some other (inbound) server.

   The proper evaluation of conditional requests by a cache depends on
   the received precondition header fields and their precedence, as
   defined in Section 6 of [Part4].  The If-Match and If-Unmodified-
   Since conditional header fields are not applicable to a cache.

   A request containing an If-None-Match header field (Section 3.2 of
   [Part4]) indicates that the client wants to validate one or more of
   its own stored responses in comparison to whichever stored response
   is selected by the cache.  If the field-value is "*", or if the
   field-value is a list of entity-tags and at least one of them match
   the entity-tag of the selected stored response, a cache recipient
   SHOULD generate a 304 (Not Modified) response (using the metadata of
   the selected stored response) instead of sending that stored
   response.

   When a cache decides to revalidate its own stored responses for a
   request that contains an If-None-Match list of entity-tags, the cache
   MAY combine the received list with a list of entity-tags from its own
   stored set of responses (fresh or stale) and send the union of the
   two lists as a replacement If-None-Match header field value in the
   forwarded request.  If a stored response contains only partial
   content, the cache MUST NOT include its entity-tag in the union
   unless the request is for a range that would be fully satisfied by
   that partial stored response.  If the response to the forwarded



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   request is 304 (Not Modified) and has an ETag header field value with
   an entity-tag that is not in the client's list, the cache MUST
   generate a 200 (OK) response for the client by reusing its
   corresponding stored response, as updated by the 304 response
   metadata (Section 4.3.4).

   If an If-None-Match header field is not present, a request containing
   an If-Modified-Since header field (Section 3.3 of [Part4]) indicates
   that the client wants to validate one or more of its own stored
   responses by modification date.  A cache recipient SHOULD generate a
   304 (Not Modified) response (using the metadata of the selected
   stored response) if one of the following cases is true: 1) the
   selected stored response has a Last-Modified field-value that is
   earlier than or equal to the conditional timestamp; 2) no Last-
   Modified field is present in the selected stored response, but it has
   a Date field-value that is earlier than or equal to the conditional
   timestamp; or, 3) neither Last-Modified nor Date is present in the
   selected stored response, but the cache recorded it as having been
   received at a time earlier than or equal to the conditional
   timestamp.

   A cache that implements partial responses to range requests, as
   defined in [Part5], also needs to evaluate a received If-Range header
   field (Section 3.2 of [Part5]) with respect to its selected stored
   response.

4.3.3.  Handling a Validation Response

   Cache handling of a response to a conditional request is dependent
   upon its status code:

   o  A 304 (Not Modified) response status code indicates that the
      stored response can be updated and reused; see Section 4.3.4.

   o  A full response (i.e., one with a payload body) indicates that
      none of the stored responses nominated in the conditional request
      is suitable.  Instead, the cache MUST use the full response to
      satisfy the request and MAY replace the stored response(s).

   o  However, if a cache receives a 5xx (Server Error) response while
      attempting to validate a response, it can either forward this
      response to the requesting client, or act as if the server failed
      to respond.  In the latter case, the cache MAY send a previously
      stored response (see Section 4.2.4).







Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


4.3.4.  Freshening Stored Responses upon Validation

   When a cache receives a 304 (Not Modified) response and already has
   one or more stored 200 (OK) responses for the same cache key, the
   cache needs to identify which of the stored responses are updated by
   this new response and then update the stored response(s) with the new
   information provided in the 304 response.

   The stored response to update is identified by using the first match
   (if any) of:

   o  If the new response contains a strong validator (see Section 2.1
      of [Part4]), then that strong validator identifies the selected
      representation for update.  All of the stored responses with the
      same strong validator are selected.  If none of the stored
      responses contain the same strong validator, then the cache MUST
      NOT use the new response to update any stored responses.

   o  If the new response contains a weak validator and that validator
      corresponds to one of the cache's stored responses, then the most
      recent of those matching stored responses is selected for update.

   o  If the new response does not include any form of validator (such
      as in the case where a client generates an If-Modified-Since
      request from a source other than the Last-Modified response header
      field), and there is only one stored response, and that stored
      response also lacks a validator, then that stored response is
      selected for update.

   If a stored response is selected for update, the cache MUST:

   o  delete any Warning header fields in the stored response with warn-
      code 1xx (see Section 5.5);

   o  retain any Warning header fields in the stored response with warn-
      code 2xx; and,

   o  use other header fields provided in the 304 (Not Modified)
      response to replace all instances of the corresponding header
      fields in the stored response.

4.3.5.  Freshening Responses via HEAD

   A response to the HEAD method is identical to what an equivalent
   request made with a GET would have been, except it lacks a body.
   This property of HEAD responses can be used to invalidate or update a
   cached GET response if the more efficient conditional GET request
   mechanism is not available (due to no validators being present in the



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   stored response) or if transmission of the representation body is not
   desired even if it has changed.

   When a cache makes an inbound HEAD request for a given request target
   and receives a 200 (OK) response, the cache SHOULD update or
   invalidate each of its stored GET responses that could have been
   selected for that request (see Section 4.1).

   For each of the stored responses that could have been selected, if
   the stored response and HEAD response have matching values for any
   received validator fields (ETag and Last-Modified) and, if the HEAD
   response has a Content-Length header field, the value of Content-
   Length matches that of the stored response, the cache SHOULD update
   the stored response a described below; otherwise, the cache SHOULD
   consider the stored response to be stale.

   If a cache updates a stored response with the metadata provided in a
   HEAD response, the cache MUST:

   o  delete any Warning header fields in the stored response with warn-
      code 1xx (see Section 5.5);

   o  retain any Warning header fields in the stored response with warn-
      code 2xx; and,

   o  use other header fields provided in the HEAD response to replace
      all instances of the corresponding header fields in the stored
      response and append new header fields to the stored response's
      header section unless otherwise restricted by the Cache-Control
      header field.

4.4.  Invalidation

   Because unsafe request methods (Section 4.2.1 of [Part2]) such as
   PUT, POST or DELETE have the potential for changing state on the
   origin server, intervening caches can use them to keep their contents
   up-to-date.

   A cache MUST invalidate the effective Request URI (Section 5.5 of
   [Part1]) as well as the URI(s) in the Location and Content-Location
   response header fields (if present) when a non-error status code is
   received in response to an unsafe request method.

   However, a cache MUST NOT invalidate a URI from a Location or
   Content-Location response header field if the host part of that URI
   differs from the host part in the effective request URI (Section 5.5
   of [Part1]).  This helps prevent denial of service attacks.




Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   A cache MUST invalidate the effective request URI (Section 5.5 of
   [Part1]) when it receives a non-error response to a request with a
   method whose safety is unknown.

   Here, a "non-error response" is one with a 2xx (Successful) or 3xx
   (Redirection) status code.  "Invalidate" means that the cache will
   either remove all stored responses related to the effective request
   URI, or will mark these as "invalid" and in need of a mandatory
   validation before they can be sent in response to a subsequent
   request.

   Note that this does not guarantee that all appropriate responses are
   invalidated.  For example, a state-changing request might invalidate
   responses in the caches it travels through, but relevant responses
   still might be stored in other caches that it has not.

5.  Header Field Definitions

   This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header
   fields related to caching.

5.1.  Age

   The "Age" header field conveys the sender's estimate of the amount of
   time since the response was generated or successfully validated at
   the origin server.  Age values are calculated as specified in
   Section 4.2.3.

     Age = delta-seconds

   The Age field-value is a non-negative integer, representing time in
   seconds (see Section 1.2.1).

   The presence of an Age header field implies that the response was not
   generated or validated by the origin server for this request.
   However, lack of an Age header field does not imply the origin was
   contacted, since the response might have been received from an
   HTTP/1.0 cache that does not implement Age.

5.2.  Cache-Control

   The "Cache-Control" header field is used to specify directives for
   caches along the request/response chain.  Such cache directives are
   unidirectional in that the presence of a directive in a request does
   not imply that the same directive is to be given in the response.

   A cache MUST obey the requirements of the Cache-Control directives
   defined in this section.  See Section 5.2.3 for information about how



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   Cache-Control directives defined elsewhere are handled.

      Note: Some HTTP/1.0 caches might not implement Cache-Control.

   A proxy, whether or not it implements a cache, MUST pass cache
   directives through in forwarded messages, regardless of their
   significance to that application, since the directives might be
   applicable to all recipients along the request/response chain.  It is
   not possible to target a directive to a specific cache.

   Cache directives are identified by a token, to be compared case-
   insensitively, and have an optional argument, that can use both token
   and quoted-string syntax.  For the directives defined below that
   define arguments, recipients ought to accept both forms, even if one
   is documented to be preferred.  For any directive not defined by this
   specification, a recipient MUST accept both forms.

     Cache-Control   = 1#cache-directive

     cache-directive = token [ "=" ( token / quoted-string ) ]

   For the cache directives defined below, no argument is defined (nor
   allowed) unless stated otherwise.

5.2.1.  Request Cache-Control Directives

5.2.1.1.  max-age

   Argument syntax:

      delta-seconds (see Section 1.2.1)

   The "max-age" request directive indicates that the client is
   unwilling to accept a response whose age is greater than the
   specified number of seconds.  Unless the max-stale request directive
   is also present, the client is not willing to accept a stale
   response.

   Note: This directive uses the token form of the argument syntax;
   e.g., 'max-age=5', not 'max-age="5"'.  A sender SHOULD NOT generate
   the quoted-string form.

5.2.1.2.  max-stale

   Argument syntax:

      delta-seconds (see Section 1.2.1)




Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   The "max-stale" request directive indicates that the client is
   willing to accept a response that has exceeded its freshness
   lifetime.  If max-stale is assigned a value, then the client is
   willing to accept a response that has exceeded its freshness lifetime
   by no more than the specified number of seconds.  If no value is
   assigned to max-stale, then the client is willing to accept a stale
   response of any age.

   Note: This directive uses the token form of the argument syntax;
   e.g., 'max-stale=10', not 'max-stale="10"'.  A sender SHOULD NOT
   generate the quoted-string form.

5.2.1.3.  min-fresh

   Argument syntax:

      delta-seconds (see Section 1.2.1)

   The "min-fresh" request directive indicates that the client is
   willing to accept a response whose freshness lifetime is no less than
   its current age plus the specified time in seconds.  That is, the
   client wants a response that will still be fresh for at least the
   specified number of seconds.

   Note: This directive uses the token form of the argument syntax;
   e.g., 'min-fresh=20', not 'min-fresh="20"'.  A sender SHOULD NOT
   generate the quoted-string form.

5.2.1.4.  no-cache

   The "no-cache" request directive indicates that a cache MUST NOT use
   a stored response to satisfy the request without successful
   validation on the origin server.

5.2.1.5.  no-store

   The "no-store" request directive indicates that a cache MUST NOT
   store any part of either this request or any response to it.  This
   directive applies to both private and shared caches.  "MUST NOT
   store" in this context means that the cache MUST NOT intentionally
   store the information in non-volatile storage, and MUST make a best-
   effort attempt to remove the information from volatile storage as
   promptly as possible after forwarding it.

   This directive is NOT a reliable or sufficient mechanism for ensuring
   privacy.  In particular, malicious or compromised caches might not
   recognize or obey this directive, and communications networks might
   be vulnerable to eavesdropping.



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   Note that if a request containing this directive is satisfied from a
   cache, the no-store request directive does not apply to the already
   stored response.

5.2.1.6.  no-transform

   The "no-transform" request directive indicates that an intermediary
   (whether or not it implements a cache) MUST NOT transform the
   payload, as defined in Section 5.7.2 of [Part1].

5.2.1.7.  only-if-cached

   The "only-if-cached" request directive indicates that the client only
   wishes to obtain a stored response.  If it receives this directive, a
   cache SHOULD either respond using a stored response that is
   consistent with the other constraints of the request, or respond with
   a 504 (Gateway Timeout) status code.  If a group of caches is being
   operated as a unified system with good internal connectivity, a
   member cache MAY forward such a request within that group of caches.

5.2.2.  Response Cache-Control Directives

5.2.2.1.  must-revalidate

   The "must-revalidate" response directive indicates that once it has
   become stale, a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy subsequent
   requests without successful validation on the origin server.

   The must-revalidate directive is necessary to support reliable
   operation for certain protocol features.  In all circumstances a
   cache MUST obey the must-revalidate directive; in particular, if a
   cache cannot reach the origin server for any reason, it MUST generate
   a 504 (Gateway Timeout) response.

   The must-revalidate directive ought to be used by servers if and only
   if failure to validate a request on the representation could result
   in incorrect operation, such as a silently unexecuted financial
   transaction.

5.2.2.2.  no-cache

   Argument syntax:

      #field-name

   The "no-cache" response directive indicates that the response MUST
   NOT be used to satisfy a subsequent request without successful
   validation on the origin server.  This allows an origin server to



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   prevent a cache from using it to satisfy a request without contacting
   it, even by caches that have been configured to send stale responses.

   If the no-cache response directive specifies one or more field-names,
   then a cache MAY use the response to satisfy a subsequent request,
   subject to any other restrictions on caching.  However, any header
   fields in the response that have the field-name(s) listed MUST NOT be
   sent in the response to a subsequent request without successful
   revalidation with the origin server.  This allows an origin server to
   prevent the re-use of certain header fields in a response, while
   still allowing caching of the rest of the response.

   The field-names given are not limited to the set of header fields
   defined by this specification.  Field names are case-insensitive.

   Note: Although it has been back-ported to many implementations, some
   HTTP/1.0 caches will not recognize or obey this directive.  Also, no-
   cache response directives with field-names are often handled by
   caches as if an unqualified no-cache directive was received; i.e.,
   the special handling for the qualified form is not widely
   implemented.

   Note: This directive uses the quoted-string form of the argument
   syntax.  A sender SHOULD NOT generate the token form (even if quoting
   appears not to be needed for single-entry lists).

5.2.2.3.  no-store

   The "no-store" response directive indicates that a cache MUST NOT
   store any part of either the immediate request or response.  This
   directive applies to both private and shared caches.  "MUST NOT
   store" in this context means that the cache MUST NOT intentionally
   store the information in non-volatile storage, and MUST make a best-
   effort attempt to remove the information from volatile storage as
   promptly as possible after forwarding it.

   This directive is NOT a reliable or sufficient mechanism for ensuring
   privacy.  In particular, malicious or compromised caches might not
   recognize or obey this directive, and communications networks might
   be vulnerable to eavesdropping.

5.2.2.4.  no-transform

   The "no-transform" response directive indicates that an intermediary
   (regardless of whether it implements a cache) MUST NOT transform the
   payload, as defined in Section 5.7.2 of [Part1].





Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


5.2.2.5.  public

   The "public" response directive indicates that any cache MAY store
   the response, even if the response would normally be non-cacheable or
   cacheable only within a private cache.  (See Section 3.2 for
   additional details related to the use of public in response to a
   request containing Authorization, and Section 3 for details of how
   public affects responses that would normally not be stored, due to
   their status codes not being defined as cacheable.)

5.2.2.6.  private

   Argument syntax:

      #field-name

   The "private" response directive indicates that the response message
   is intended for a single user and MUST NOT be stored by a shared
   cache.  A private cache MAY store the response and reuse it for later
   requests, even if the response would normally be non-cacheable.

   If the private response directive specifies one or more field-names,
   this requirement is limited to the field-values associated with the
   listed response header fields.  That is, a shared cache MUST NOT
   store the specified field-names(s), whereas it MAY store the
   remainder of the response message.

   The field-names given are not limited to the set of header fields
   defined by this specification.  Field names are case-insensitive.

   Note: This usage of the word "private" only controls where the
   response can be stored; it cannot ensure the privacy of the message
   content.  Also, private response directives with field-names are
   often handled by caches as if an unqualified private directive was
   received; i.e., the special handling for the qualified form is not
   widely implemented.

   Note: This directive uses the quoted-string form of the argument
   syntax.  A sender SHOULD NOT generate the token form (even if quoting
   appears not to be needed for single-entry lists).

5.2.2.7.  proxy-revalidate

   The "proxy-revalidate" response directive has the same meaning as the
   must-revalidate response directive, except that it does not apply to
   private caches.





Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


5.2.2.8.  max-age

   Argument syntax:

      delta-seconds (see Section 1.2.1)

   The "max-age" response directive indicates that the response is to be
   considered stale after its age is greater than the specified number
   of seconds.

   Note: This directive uses the token form of the argument syntax;
   e.g., 'max-age=5', not 'max-age="5"'.  A sender SHOULD NOT generate
   the quoted-string form.

5.2.2.9.  s-maxage

   Argument syntax:

      delta-seconds (see Section 1.2.1)

   The "s-maxage" response directive indicates that, in shared caches,
   the maximum age specified by this directive overrides the maximum age
   specified by either the max-age directive or the Expires header
   field.  The s-maxage directive also implies the semantics of the
   proxy-revalidate response directive.

   Note: This directive uses the token form of the argument syntax;
   e.g., 's-maxage=10', not 's-maxage="10"'.  A sender SHOULD NOT
   generate the quoted-string form.

5.2.3.  Cache Control Extensions

   The Cache-Control header field can be extended through the use of one
   or more cache-extension tokens, each with an optional value.

   Informational extensions (those that do not require a change in cache
   behavior) can be added without changing the semantics of other
   directives.  Behavioral extensions are designed to work by acting as
   modifiers to the existing base of cache directives.

   Both the new directive and the standard directive are supplied, such
   that applications that do not understand the new directive will
   default to the behavior specified by the standard directive, and
   those that understand the new directive will recognize it as
   modifying the requirements associated with the standard directive.
   In this way, extensions to the cache-control directives can be made
   without requiring changes to the base protocol.




Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   This extension mechanism depends on an HTTP cache obeying all of the
   cache-control directives defined for its native HTTP-version, obeying
   certain extensions, and ignoring all directives that it does not
   understand.

   For example, consider a hypothetical new response directive called
   "community" that acts as a modifier to the private directive.  We
   define this new directive to mean that, in addition to any private
   cache, any cache that is shared only by members of the community
   named within its value is allowed to cache the response.  An origin
   server wishing to allow the UCI community to use an otherwise private
   response in their shared cache(s) could do so by including

     Cache-Control: private, community="UCI"

   A cache seeing this header field will act correctly even if the cache
   does not understand the community cache-extension, since it will also
   see and understand the private directive and thus default to the safe
   behavior.

   A cache MUST ignore unrecognized cache directives; it is assumed that
   any cache directive likely to be unrecognized by an HTTP/1.1 cache
   will be combined with standard directives (or the response's default
   cacheability) such that the cache behavior will remain minimally
   correct even if the cache does not understand the extension(s).

5.3.  Expires

   The "Expires" header field gives the date/time after which the
   response is considered stale.  See Section 4.2 for further discussion
   of the freshness model.

   The presence of an Expires field does not imply that the original
   resource will change or cease to exist at, before, or after that
   time.

   The Expires value is an HTTP-date timestamp, as defined in Section
   7.1.1.1 of [Part2].

     Expires = HTTP-date

   For example

     Expires: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT

   A cache recipient MUST interpret invalid date formats, especially the
   value "0", as representing a time in the past (i.e., "already
   expired").



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   If a response includes a Cache-Control field with the max-age
   directive (Section 5.2.2.8), a recipient MUST ignore the Expires
   field.  Likewise, if a response includes the s-maxage directive
   (Section 5.2.2.9), a shared cache recipient MUST ignore the Expires
   field.  In both these cases, the value in Expires is only intended
   for recipients that have not yet implemented the Cache-Control field.

   An origin server without a clock MUST NOT generate an Expires field
   unless its value represents a fixed time in the past (always expired)
   or its value has been associated with the resource by a system or
   user with a reliable clock.

   Historically, HTTP required the Expires field-value to be no more
   than a year in the future.  While longer freshness lifetimes are no
   longer prohibited, extremely large values have been demonstrated to
   cause problems (e.g., clock overflows due to use of 32-bit integers
   for time values), and many caches will evict a response far sooner
   than that.

5.4.  Pragma

   The "Pragma" header field allows backwards compatibility with
   HTTP/1.0 caches, so that clients can specify a "no-cache" request
   that they will understand (as Cache-Control was not defined until
   HTTP/1.1).  When the Cache-Control header field is also present and
   understood in a request, Pragma is ignored.

   In HTTP/1.0, Pragma was defined as an extensible field for
   implementation-specified directives for recipients.  This
   specification deprecates such extensions to improve interoperability.

     Pragma           = 1#pragma-directive
     pragma-directive = "no-cache" / extension-pragma
     extension-pragma = token [ "=" ( token / quoted-string ) ]

   When the Cache-Control header field is not present in a request,
   caches MUST consider the no-cache request pragma-directive as having
   the same effect as if "Cache-Control: no-cache" were present (see
   Section 5.2.1).

   When sending a no-cache request, a client ought to include both the
   pragma and cache-control directives, unless Cache-Control: no-cache
   is purposefully omitted to target other Cache-Control response
   directives at HTTP/1.1 caches.  For example:

     GET / HTTP/1.1
     Host: www.example.com
     Cache-Control: max-age=30



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


     Pragma: no-cache


   will constrain HTTP/1.1 caches to serve a response no older than 30
   seconds, while precluding implementations that do not understand
   Cache-Control from serving a cached response.

      Note: Because the meaning of "Pragma: no-cache" in responses is
      not specified, it does not provide a reliable replacement for
      "Cache-Control: no-cache" in them.

5.5.  Warning

   The "Warning" header field is used to carry additional information
   about the status or transformation of a message that might not be
   reflected in the status code.  This information is typically used to
   warn about possible incorrectness introduced by caching operations or
   transformations applied to the payload of the message.

   Warnings can be used for other purposes, both cache-related and
   otherwise.  The use of a warning, rather than an error status code,
   distinguishes these responses from true failures.

   Warning header fields can in general be applied to any message,
   however some warn-codes are specific to caches and can only be
   applied to response messages.

     Warning       = 1#warning-value

     warning-value = warn-code SP warn-agent SP warn-text
                                           [ SP warn-date ]

     warn-code  = 3DIGIT
     warn-agent = ( uri-host [ ":" port ] ) / pseudonym
                     ; the name or pseudonym of the server adding
                     ; the Warning header field, for use in debugging
                     ; a single "-" is recommended when agent unknown
     warn-text  = quoted-string
     warn-date  = DQUOTE HTTP-date DQUOTE

   Multiple warnings can be generated in a response (either by the
   origin server or by a cache), including multiple warnings with the
   same warn-code number that only differ in warn-text.

   A user agent that receives one or more Warning header fields SHOULD
   inform the user of as many of them as possible, in the order that
   they appear in the response.  Senders that generate multiple Warning
   header fields are encouraged to order them with this user agent



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   behavior in mind.  A sender that generates new Warning header fields
   MUST append them after any existing Warning header fields.

   Warnings are assigned three digit warn-codes.  The first digit
   indicates whether the Warning is required to be deleted from a stored
   response after validation:

   o  1xx warn-codes describe the freshness or validation status of the
      response, and so MUST be deleted by a cache after validation.
      They can only be generated by a cache when validating a cached
      entry, and MUST NOT be generated in any other situation.

   o  2xx warn-codes describe some aspect of the representation that is
      not rectified by a validation (for example, a lossy compression of
      the representation) and MUST NOT be deleted by a cache after
      validation, unless a full response is sent, in which case they
      MUST be.

   If a sender generates one or more 1xx warn-codes in a message to be
   sent to a recipient known to implement only HTTP/1.0, the sender MUST
   include in each corresponding warning-value a warn-date that matches
   the Date header field in the message.  For example:

     HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 23:34:45 GMT
     Warning: 112 - "network down" "Sat, 25 Aug 2012 23:34:45 GMT"


   If a recipient that uses, evaluates, or displays Warning header
   fields receives a warn-date that is different from the Date value in
   the same message, the recipient MUST exclude the warning-value
   containing that warn-date before storing, forwarding, or using the
   message.  This allows recipients to exclude warning-values that were
   improperly retained after a cache validation.  If all of the warning-
   values are excluded, the recipient MUST exclude the Warning header
   field as well.

   The following warn-codes are defined by this specification, each with
   a recommended warn-text in English, and a description of its meaning.
   The procedure for defining additional warn codes is described in
   Section 7.2.1.

5.5.1.  Warning: 110 - "Response is Stale"

   A cache SHOULD generate this whenever the sent response is stale.






Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


5.5.2.  Warning: 111 - "Revalidation Failed"

   A cache SHOULD generate this when sending a stale response because an
   attempt to validate the response failed, due to an inability to reach
   the server.

5.5.3.  Warning: 112 - "Disconnected Operation"

   A cache SHOULD generate this if it is intentionally disconnected from
   the rest of the network for a period of time.

5.5.4.  Warning: 113 - "Heuristic Expiration"

   A cache SHOULD generate this if it heuristically chose a freshness
   lifetime greater than 24 hours and the response's age is greater than
   24 hours.

5.5.5.  Warning: 199 - "Miscellaneous Warning"

   The warning text can include arbitrary information to be presented to
   a human user, or logged.  A system receiving this warning MUST NOT
   take any automated action, besides presenting the warning to the
   user.

5.5.6.  Warning: 214 - "Transformation Applied"

   MUST be added by a proxy if it applies any transformation to the
   representation, such as changing the content-coding, media-type, or
   modifying the representation data, unless this Warning code already
   appears in the response.

5.5.7.  Warning: 299 - "Miscellaneous Persistent Warning"

   The warning text can include arbitrary information to be presented to
   a human user, or logged.  A system receiving this warning MUST NOT
   take any automated action.

6.  History Lists

   User agents often have history mechanisms, such as "Back" buttons and
   history lists, that can be used to redisplay a representation
   retrieved earlier in a session.

   The freshness model (Section 4.2) does not necessarily apply to
   history mechanisms.  I.e., a history mechanism can display a previous
   representation even if it has expired.

   This does not prohibit the history mechanism from telling the user



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   that a view might be stale, or from honoring cache directives (e.g.,
   Cache-Control: no-store).

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  Cache Directive Registry

   The HTTP Cache Directive Registry defines the name space for the
   cache directives.  It will be created and maintained at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-cache-directives>.

7.1.1.  Procedure

   A registration MUST include the following fields:

   o  Cache Directive Name

   o  Pointer to specification text

   Values to be added to this name space require IETF Review (see
   [RFC5226], Section 4.1).

7.1.2.  Considerations for New Cache Control Directives

   New extension directives ought to consider defining:

   o  What it means for a directive to be specified multiple times,

   o  When the directive does not take an argument, what it means when
      an argument is present,

   o  When the directive requires an argument, what it means when it is
      missing,

   o  Whether the directive is specific to requests, responses, or able
      to be used in either.

   See also Section 5.2.3.

7.1.3.  Registrations

   The HTTP Cache Directive Registry shall be populated with the
   registrations below:








Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   +------------------------+----------------------------------+
   | Cache Directive        | Reference                        |
   +------------------------+----------------------------------+
   | max-age                | Section 5.2.1.1, Section 5.2.2.8 |
   | max-stale              | Section 5.2.1.2                  |
   | min-fresh              | Section 5.2.1.3                  |
   | must-revalidate        | Section 5.2.2.1                  |
   | no-cache               | Section 5.2.1.4, Section 5.2.2.2 |
   | no-store               | Section 5.2.1.5, Section 5.2.2.3 |
   | no-transform           | Section 5.2.1.6, Section 5.2.2.4 |
   | only-if-cached         | Section 5.2.1.7                  |
   | private                | Section 5.2.2.6                  |
   | proxy-revalidate       | Section 5.2.2.7                  |
   | public                 | Section 5.2.2.5                  |
   | s-maxage               | Section 5.2.2.9                  |
   | stale-if-error         | [RFC5861], Section 4             |
   | stale-while-revalidate | [RFC5861], Section 3             |
   +------------------------+----------------------------------+

7.2.  Warn Code Registry

   The HTTP Warn Code Registry defines the name space for warn codes.
   It will be created and maintained at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-warn-codes>.

7.2.1.  Procedure

   A registration MUST include the following fields:

   o  Warn Code (3 digits)

   o  Short Description

   o  Pointer to specification text

   Values to be added to this name space require IETF Review (see
   [RFC5226], Section 4.1).

7.2.2.  Registrations

   The HTTP Warn Code Registry shall be populated with the registrations
   below:









Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   +-----------+----------------------------------+---------------+
   | Warn Code | Short Description                | Reference     |
   +-----------+----------------------------------+---------------+
   | 110       | Response is Stale                | Section 5.5.1 |
   | 111       | Revalidation Failed              | Section 5.5.2 |
   | 112       | Disconnected Operation           | Section 5.5.3 |
   | 113       | Heuristic Expiration             | Section 5.5.4 |
   | 199       | Miscellaneous Warning            | Section 5.5.5 |
   | 214       | Transformation Applied           | Section 5.5.6 |
   | 299       | Miscellaneous Persistent Warning | Section 5.5.7 |
   +-----------+----------------------------------+---------------+

7.3.  Header Field Registration

   HTTP header fields are registered within the Message Header Field
   Registry maintained at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
   message-headers/message-header-index.html>.

   This document defines the following HTTP header fields, so their
   associated registry entries shall be updated according to the
   permanent registrations below (see [BCP90]):

   +-------------------+----------+----------+-------------+
   | Header Field Name | Protocol | Status   | Reference   |
   +-------------------+----------+----------+-------------+
   | Age               | http     | standard | Section 5.1 |
   | Cache-Control     | http     | standard | Section 5.2 |
   | Expires           | http     | standard | Section 5.3 |
   | Pragma            | http     | standard | Section 5.4 |
   | Warning           | http     | standard | Section 5.5 |
   +-------------------+----------+----------+-------------+

   The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet
   Engineering Task Force".

8.  Security Considerations

   This section is meant to inform developers, information providers,
   and users of known security concerns specific to HTTP/1.1 caching.
   More general security considerations are addressed in HTTP messaging
   [Part1] and semantics [Part2].

   Caches expose additional potential vulnerabilities, since the
   contents of the cache represent an attractive target for malicious
   exploitation.  Because cache contents persist after an HTTP request
   is complete, an attack on the cache can reveal information long after
   a user believes that the information has been removed from the
   network.  Therefore, cache contents need to be protected as sensitive



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   information.

   Furthermore, the very use of a cache can bring about privacy
   concerns.  For example, if two users share a cache, and the first one
   browses to a site, the second may be able to detect that the other
   has been to that site, because the resources from it load more
   quickly, thanks to the cache.

   Implementation flaws might allow attackers to insert content into a
   cache ("cache poisoning"), leading to compromise of clients that
   trust that content.  Because of their nature, these attacks are
   difficult to mitigate.

   Likewise, implementation flaws (as well as misunderstanding of cache
   operation) might lead to caching of sensitive information (e.g.,
   authentication credentials) that is thought to be private, exposing
   it to unauthorized parties.

   Note that the Set-Cookie response header field [RFC6265] does not
   inhibit caching; a cacheable response with a Set-Cookie header field
   can be (and often is) used to satisfy subsequent requests to caches.
   Servers who wish to control caching of these responses are encouraged
   to emit appropriate Cache-Control response header fields.

9.  Acknowledgments

   See Section 10 of [Part1].

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [Part1]    Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 (work in progress),
              September 2013.

   [Part2]    Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 (work in progress),
              September 2013.

   [Part4]    Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24 (work in progress),
              September 2013.

   [Part5]    Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


              "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 (work in progress),
              September 2013.

   [Part7]    Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 (work in progress),
              September 2013.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

10.2.  Informative References

   [BCP90]    Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
              Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
              September 2004.

   [RFC1305]  Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
              Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, March 1992.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5861]  Nottingham, M., "HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale
              Content", RFC 5861, April 2010.

   [RFC6265]  Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
              April 2011.

Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 2616

   The specification has been substantially rewritten for clarity.

   The conditions under which an authenticated response can be cached
   have been clarified.  (Section 3.2)

   New status codes can now define that caches are allowed to use
   heuristic freshness with them.  Caches are now allowed to calculate
   heuristic freshness for URIs with query components.  (Section 4.2.2)



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   The algorithm for calculating age is now less conservative.  Caches
   are now required to handle dates with timezones as if they're
   invalid, because it's not possible to accurately guess.
   (Section 4.2.3)

   The Content-Location response header field is no longer used to
   determine the appropriate response to use when validating.
   (Section 4.3)

   The algorithm for selecting a cached negotiated response to use has
   been clarified in several ways.  In particular, it now explicitly
   allows header-specific canonicalization when processing selecting
   header fields.  (Section 4.1)

   Requirements regarding denial of service attack avoidance when
   performing invalidation have been clarified.  (Section 4.4)

   Cache invalidation only occurs when a successful response is
   received.  (Section 4.4)

   Cache directives are explicitly defined to be case-insensitive.
   Handling of multiple instances of cache directives when only one is
   expected is now defined.  (Section 5.2)

   The "no-store" cache request directive doesn't apply to responses;
   i.e., a cache can satisfy a request with no-store on it, and does not
   invalidate it.  (Section 5.2.1.5)

   The qualified forms of the private and no-cache cache directives are
   noted to not be widely implemented; e.g., "private=foo" is
   interpreted by many caches as simply "private".  Additionally, the
   meaning of the qualified form of no-cache has been clarified.
   (Section 5.2.2)

   The "no-cache" response cache directive's meaning has been clarified.
   (Section 5.2.2.2)

   The one-year limit on Expires header field values has been removed;
   instead, the reasoning for using a sensible value is given.
   (Section 5.3)

   The Pragma header field is now only defined for backwards
   compatibility; future pragmas are deprecated.  (Section 5.4)

   Some requirements regarding production and processing of the Warning
   header fields have been relaxed, as it is not widely implemented.
   Furthermore, the Warning header field no longer uses RFC 2047
   encoding, nor allows multiple languages, as these aspects were not



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   implemented.  (Section 5.5)

   This specification introduces the Cache Directive and Warn Code
   Registries, and defines considerations for new cache directives.
   (Section 7.1 and Section 7.2)

Appendix B.  Imported ABNF

   The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in
   Appendix B.1 of [RFC5234]: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return),
   CRLF (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double
   quote), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any
   8-bit sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
   character).

   The rules below are defined in [Part1]:

     OWS           = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>
     field-name    = <field-name, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2>
     quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.6>
     token         = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.6>

     port          = <port, defined in [Part1], Section 2.7>
     pseudonym     = <pseudonym, defined in [Part1], Section 5.7.1>
     uri-host      = <uri-host, defined in [Part1], Section 2.7>

   The rules below are defined in other parts:

     HTTP-date     = <HTTP-date, defined in [Part2], Section 7.1.1.1>

Appendix C.  Collected ABNF

   In the collected ABNF below, list rules are expanded as per Section
   1.2 of [Part1].

















Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 38]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


   Age = delta-seconds

   Cache-Control = *( "," OWS ) cache-directive *( OWS "," [ OWS
    cache-directive ] )

   Expires = HTTP-date

   HTTP-date = <HTTP-date, defined in [Part2], Section 7.1.1.1>

   OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>

   Pragma = *( "," OWS ) pragma-directive *( OWS "," [ OWS
    pragma-directive ] )

   Warning = *( "," OWS ) warning-value *( OWS "," [ OWS warning-value ]
    )

   cache-directive = token [ "=" ( token / quoted-string ) ]

   delta-seconds = 1*DIGIT

   extension-pragma = token [ "=" ( token / quoted-string ) ]

   field-name = <field-name, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2>

   port = <port, defined in [Part1], Section 2.7>
   pragma-directive = "no-cache" / extension-pragma
   pseudonym = <pseudonym, defined in [Part1], Section 5.7.1>

   quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.6>

   token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.6>

   uri-host = <uri-host, defined in [Part1], Section 2.7>

   warn-agent = ( uri-host [ ":" port ] ) / pseudonym
   warn-code = 3DIGIT
   warn-date = DQUOTE HTTP-date DQUOTE
   warn-text = quoted-string
   warning-value = warn-code SP warn-agent SP warn-text [ SP warn-date
    ]

Appendix D.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)

   Changes up to the first Working Group Last Call draft are summarized
   in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/
   draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19#appendix-C>.




Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 39]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


D.1.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/307>: "untangle
      Cache-Control ABNF"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/353>: "Multiple
      values in Cache-Control header fields"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/355>: "Case
      sensitivity of header fields in CC values"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/356>: "Spurious
      'MAYs'"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/360>: "enhance
      considerations for new cache control directives"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/361>: "ABNF
      requirements for recipients"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/368>: "note
      introduction of new IANA registries as normative changes"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/373>: "broken prose
      in description of 'Vary'"

D.2.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-20

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/375>: "'Most
      Conservative'"

   Other changes:

   o  Conformance criteria and considerations regarding error handling
      are now defined in Part 1.

   o  Move definition of "Vary" header field into Part 2.

   o  Add security considerations with respect to cache poisoning and
      the "Set-Cookie" header field.







Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 40]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


D.3.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-21

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/223>: "Allowing
      heuristic caching for new status codes"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/406>: "304 without
      validator"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/418>: "No-Transform"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/430>: "Revert prior
      change to the meaning of the public cache response directive.

D.4.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-22

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/436>: "explain list
      expansion in ABNF appendices"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/453>: "Returning the
      freshest response"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/464>: "placement of
      extension point considerations"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/469>: "Editorial
      notes for p6"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/471>: "Vary and
      future requests"

D.5.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-23

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/486>: "Requiring
      proxies to process warn-date"

   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/496>: "add Warning
      header field examples"

Index

   1
      110 (warn-code)  30



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 41]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


      111 (warn-code)  31
      112 (warn-code)  31
      113 (warn-code)  31
      199 (warn-code)  31

   2
      214 (warn-code)  31
      299 (warn-code)  31

   A
      age  10
      Age header field  20

   C
      cache  4
      cache entry  5
      cache key  5
      Cache-Control header field  20

   D
      Disconnected Operation (warn-text)  31

   E
      Expires header field  27
      explicit expiration time  10

   F
      fresh  10
      freshness lifetime  10

   G
      Grammar
         Age  20
         Cache-Control  21
         cache-directive  21
         delta-seconds  5
         Expires  27
         extension-pragma  28
         Pragma  28
         pragma-directive  28
         warn-agent  29
         warn-code  29
         warn-date  29
         warn-text  29
         Warning  29
         warning-value  29

   H



Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 42]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


      Heuristic Expiration (warn-text)  31
      heuristic expiration time  10

   M
      max-age (cache directive)  21, 26
      max-stale (cache directive)  21
      min-fresh (cache directive)  22
      Miscellaneous Persistent Warning (warn-text)  31
      Miscellaneous Warning (warn-text)  31
      must-revalidate (cache directive)  23

   N
      no-cache (cache directive)  22-23
      no-store (cache directive)  22, 24
      no-transform (cache directive)  23-24

   O
      only-if-cached (cache directive)  23

   P
      Pragma header field  28
      private (cache directive)  25
      private cache  4
      proxy-revalidate (cache directive)  25
      public (cache directive)  25

   R
      Response is Stale (warn-text)  30
      Revalidation Failed (warn-text)  31

   S
      s-maxage (cache directive)  26
      shared cache  4
      stale  10
      strong validator  18

   T
      Transformation Applied (warn-text)  31

   V
      validator  15

   W
      Warning header field  29







Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 43]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1 Caching              September 2013


Authors' Addresses

   Roy T. Fielding (editor)
   Adobe Systems Incorporated
   345 Park Ave
   San Jose, CA  95110
   USA

   EMail: fielding@gbiv.com
   URI:   http://roy.gbiv.com/


   Mark Nottingham (editor)
   Akamai

   EMail: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   http://www.mnot.net/


   Julian F. Reschke (editor)
   greenbytes GmbH
   Hafenweg 16
   Muenster, NW  48155
   Germany

   EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
   URI:   http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
























Fielding, et al.         Expires March 29, 2014                [Page 44]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/