Yes, so we should track it but I don’t think it rises to the level of an errata on its own. > On Feb 19, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> > wrote: > > 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
