Examples in RFC 6750 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6750> and RFC 6749
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749> as well as some normative text in section
5.1 of RFC 6749 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-5.1> use a
"Pragma: no-cache" HTTP response header. However, both RFC 2616
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.32> and the shiny new RFC
7234 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-5.4> make special note
along the lines of the following to say that it doesn't work as response
header:
'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.'
The header doesn't hurt anything, I don't think, so having it in these
documents isn't really a problem. But it seems like it'd be better to not
further perpetuate the "Pragma: no-cache" response header myth in actual
published RFCs.
So with that said, two questions:
1) Do folks agree that 6747/6750 are using the "Pragma: no-cache" response
header inappropriately?
2) If so, does this qualify as errata?
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
