A question about Cache-Control header.
As you all know, a certain cdn servise allow to use Cache-Control headers from origin to control a cachability of the cache servers. when plan to migrate from it to Akamai, normally we can use honor Cache-Control header of PM.
According to Akamai document, we can use Cache-Control: no-cache, Cache-Control: no-store, and etc.
From your document, no-cache behavior of ghost is like TTL=0, no-store is like No-Store of PM.
On the other hand, according to RFC 2616, no-cache Must NOT use the response when we don't specify field name as follows.
no-cacheIf the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent caching even by caches that have been configured to return stale responses to client requests.
Why doesn't Akamai follow RFC? The no-cache of Akamai specification allow to serve stale content. This specification make a confusion and trouble when we do migrate the other CDN service to Akamai.
What do you think?