[Openid-specs-ab] Form Post Response Mode example has 'Pragma: no-cache'

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Thu Feb 19 23:08:09 UTC 2015

First question to the working group:  Do we agree that "Pragma: no-cache" should be changed to "Cache-Control: no-cache" in the Form Post Response Mode spec before approval?

Second question to the working group:  If we agree to make this change (to text that only occurs in a non-normative example), are people comfortable doing this without restarting the 60 day review period (but still notifying people of the change)?

My personal answers would be “yes” and “yes” but we shouldn’t do this at this point unless there’s working group consensus to do so.

Brian, could you also send a note to the OAuth working group pointing this problem with RFC 6749 and RFC 6750 and asking whether errata should be filed?  This would help get more expert eyes on the issue.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Brian!

                                                                -- Mike

From: Openid-specs-ab [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Brian Campbell
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 2:17 PM
To: <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Form Post Response Mode example has 'Pragma: no-cache'

The example response in http://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-form-post-response-mode-1_0-03.html#FormPostResponseExample has a "Pragma: no-cache" 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.'

It doesn't really hurt anything having it in the Form Post Response Mode document but I'm thinking it'd be better to not further perpetuate the "Pragma: no-cache" response header myth in this specification* and that that line should probably be removed from the example.
Or am I wrong on this? And if so, what am I missing?

* And, yeah, it's in Connect Core and OAuth 2.0 as well but I figured starting with a draft that wasn't yet final was good.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20150219/0bcdc16c/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list