Bob cannot retrieve the same data twice

[KPrasch]

[jMyles]

At a high-level, Bob needs to be able to retrieve twice. Obviously?

But just under that hood, what's the desired behavior? He keeps the WorkOrder for the old job and makes a new one? Currently, WorkOrders are regarded as unique per Ursula per Capsule. I guess we don't want that?

[michwill]

I guess so, they don't have to be unique.
Why does uniqueness matter in our code?

[michwill]

Why would Bob even want to try to retrieve if he has the response already (and cached)?

[jMyles]

Well... I can certainly hear @tuxxy in my head (which you know, is already a source of discomfort, even if it weren't for the re-retrieval problem here) saying that, in the KMS scenario (and that's just one example), a well-behaving Bob wants to be unable to re-gain access to revoked content.

Consider that, in any scenario in which Alice and Bob are on the same time, Bob's use of cached CFrags as an end-around to revocation is an anti-pattern.

[michwill]

Sure so. However, even in a KMS (or, say, a KMS+HSM) you often have some caching of keys (with expiration times and such). I think, that's what we'd expect for Bob.
The minimal functionality though wouldn't expect caching at all