Cache should honor `Surrogate-Control` response headers as well about caddy-cache

[ryanschneider]

Testing some more, I think cache does need to remove the Surrogate-Control header, since if proxy removes it the cache doesn't see it.

[nicolasazrak]

To be honest I didn't knew it existed. It shouldn't be hard to implement, it's just a change in the rules logic (https://github.com/nicolasazrak/caddy-cache/blob/master/rules.go). I don't have much time right now but I'll try to implement it in a few days if I can.

[ryanschneider]

Me neither until I came across it :) I probably won't have time this week, but if you haven't gotten to it by next week I should have time to help with a PR. Thanks!

…

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Nicolas ***@***.***> wrote: To be honest I didn't knew it existed. It shouldn't be hard to implement, it's just a change in the rules logic (https://github.com/ nicolasazrak/caddy-cache/blob/master/rules.go). I don't have much time right now but I'll try to implement it in a few days if I can. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#24 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADREH_4aZL3layEZ8vTwxgGW_TrZDKiks5tpSIfgaJpZM4TUett> .

[ryanschneider]

I finally spent some time looking at this more, and realized it actually needs to be added to the cachecontrol package upstream, so I'll open an issue there and see if I can add it.

[pquerna]

(upstream package here)

BTW, I'm generally fine adding support for this in cachecontrol, but as someone who has been doing http caching for a long time, I wasn't familiar with Surrogate-Control. Its not supported by nginx/apache/etc.

So, I'm not opposed to supporting it, I was just wondering if there is a real world origin you are trying to support that outputs these?

Yes, I see that varnish & fastly have been promoting more use of it, but besides a 2001 w3c note, it is notability absent from things like rfc7234

I wonder if @mnot has commentary about Surrogate-Control?

[ryanschneider]

Our in-house origin does, because we added it for our CDN, which I'm now looking to replace with our own edge servers, and was building a proof of concept with Caddy.

It is nice in that it's not passed to end-user browsers, so you can have separate CDN and end-user caching strategies, but I agree 100% it's pretty niche.

[nicolasazrak]

I'm in favor of adding any feature as long as it doesn't add complexity to the project, which seems to be the case. For this package, I think it's just a matter of upgrading the cache-control version when the support for Surrogate-Control is implemented and removing the header from the response if it's present. So unless I'm missing something this should be a pretty trivial change.

[mnot]

It's also supported by Akamai and other CDNs. That is not one of my favourite specs (sorry), but it does see deployment.

I'm half-tempted to write an updated spec and come up with some tests.

It would be good for frameworks to support it, so that they can interop with CDNs better; I've been trying to get CDNs to become more standardised in how they handle HTTP, so this would help (I think).