8 ms·

W3C laid the groundwork for everything on the Web to be heavily cacheable, so it's weird that there are so few general-purpose proxy caches. Are publishers send

W3C laid the groundwork for everything on the Web to be heavily cacheable, so it's weird that there are so few general-purpose proxy caches. Are publishers sending short "Cache-Control: max-age" or "Vary: Cookie" responses when they didn't need to? Are too many ISPs paying for transit rather than peering?

lmz 2y ago
In general there's no way to ensure the cache hasn't tampered with the contents (e.g. ISP proxy ad injection on non HTTPS sites). For software downloads usually there are signatures and checksums. Arbitrary content, not so much.
- arccy 2y ago
  There was HTTP SXG (signed exchanges) but it never seemed to get any traction https://web.dev/articles/signed-exchanges https://web.dev/articles/signed-exchanges
  - iainmerrick 2y ago
    Even if the content is signed, there’s still the issue that the proxy gets to see everything you read, right?
    - arccy 2y ago
      that's the point of a proxy that can share contents between clients...
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Maybe use cache only when Subresource Integrity is present. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subresource_Integrity https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subres...