Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 78498 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2006 22:12:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2006 22:12:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 64018 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2006 22:12:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 63388 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2006 22:12:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 63375 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2006 22:12:42 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:12:42 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [209.237.227.194] (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (209.237.227.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:12:42 -0700 Received: (qmail 78450 invoked by uid 2161); 3 Jun 2006 22:12:21 -0000 Received: from [192.168.2.4] (euler.heimnetz.de [192.168.2.4]) by cerberus.heimnetz.de (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.0 (i386)) with ESMTP id 26A761721C for ; Sun, 4 Jun 2006 00:12:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4482093F.4090908@apache.org> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 00:12:15 +0200 From: Ruediger Pluem User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060417 X-Accept-Language: de, en, de-de, en-gb, cy, zu, xh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: PR35247: Does mod_cache violate RFC2616 because it ignores s-maxage in responses with max-age? X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Can someone of our RFC experts please have a look at PR 35247 (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35247)? Questions that remain are: 1. Does the current behaviour of mod_cache really violate RFC2616? 2. If yes, does the proposed patch fix this violation? Regards R�diger