[squid-users] Caching Google Chrome googlechromestandaloneenterprise64.msi

[garryd at comnet.uz]

On 2016-10-22 17:56, Antony Stone wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer.
> 
> On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, garryd at comnet.uz wrote:
> 
>> IMO:
>> 
>> The only reason I believe [explains] why core developers of Squid tend 
>> to
>> move HTTP violating settings from average users is to prevent possible
>> abuse/misuse.
> 
> I believe the reason is that one of Squid's goals is to be RFC 
> compliant,
> therefore it does not contain features which violate HTTP.
> 
>> Nevertheless, I believe that core developers should publish an
>> _official_ explanations regarding the tendency, as it often becomes a
>> "center of gravity" of many topics.
> 
> Which "tendency"?
> 
> What are you asking for an official explanation of?
> 
> 
> Antony.

Since I started use Squid, it's configuration always RFC compliant by 
default, _but_ there were always knobs for users to make it HTTP 
violent. It was in hands of users to decide how to handle a web 
resource. Now it is not always possible, and the topic is an evidence. 
For example, in terms of this topic, users can't violate this RFC 
statement [1]:

    A Vary field value of "*" signals that anything about the request
    might play a role in selecting the response representation, possibly
    including elements outside the message syntax (e.g., the client's
    network address).  A recipient will not be able to determine whether
    this response is appropriate for a later request without forwarding
    the request to the origin server.  A proxy MUST NOT generate a Vary
    field with a "*" value.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-7.1.4