IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header-09

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 18 August 2021 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EECC43A1CDB for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=b6JLAwN5; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ipab/Isl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UCHUOJGzpNzK for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2463A1C54 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10155C0225; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:39:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:39:49 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=k H0q0X1kYJ0zjfC3E2uZa3bOVHvdUnm3csf2GwZW/lA=; b=b6JLAwN5a2Td3aMxr gQqtZtcDWyLJoMtyGfnxNTxHA6wL07clw0v46Y+qJ3AoyK9MO6jtpiFkjEHymLnF Qcco/Qx/8l+jODpi1MI+bEPII3F4R6e8RKgV5IU5T/QmrPDLTeC1IZ1J8FVYoLs9 g9tAnAyXmZmcnn3CvJgZrBlzJOpzLx4xc84jw7r+lDSPLE8e95GtKtsxeALV+1sW SaSKPkivSZSK2hAFl+6mzg9vJWxxlvrhyzqUZwYvGOm8QbIKw1bYO4kdPQXxM48l GNuvFqEvF4v5v2NlRKlsJm0L1x1Ir0rpzHTihcEfP3PEQIqZLsdRTH/Q9P4MjaH4 ZzHWA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=kH0q0X1kYJ0zjfC3E2uZa3bOVHvdUnm3csf2GwZW/ lA=; b=ipab/Isls2Za0J1cek4Qjn4Xw33IiiIjVt70xstlrVnIjCwHwleWiXWlx sqB24ZihkRD6FXmB5DWq4boayKcYkAKCFdw6DVwiEvMZnPfjB+iFKPdG5lAkBxoT xrU4bKD4ePEm2VtRPFzWdoml0IHaUaYDBPSSaBx2Op+0HgbfsBI/yLpw1prr0b0j jVVHYOVKJudE9pd7EYnQY7DZH4Qa8gAmmfthpu5gfNt/pu7D67MnLUwrqIRZiy/1 hUJJt+RrMooiC6IL6Zixu9t6FPP9xlj5LOpLShVdTcyySHL3OaEHgFx0fJBXwnQ3 0BhS4CRAZbLAr0CSraJvQS8KlHKNg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:5GQcYb2f6AdNqbgkshadpRDzjYpAm64Jt4m3qOzQcrocE-ZQGKvhgQ> <xme:5GQcYaHtwc03JDIjN6UPMNw7ItlI1s6uhNfIr_v5-tbKtKwuL99Uip2ToAalyOyFz qt8jLt3TBuFltKJCA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:5GQcYb4r3Xz_ScBoQ1uyl7F3fMwpISZaDOBlPI58ZfIbezGJ8aUzpd0trEqT2k8rz3XbRQ_2VHVl-GWFvGT3m9wwDgp_EP9c7Nzcw7S_JmfCrD8FWwxjE2YI>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrleeggdegjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmh dthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhkucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhn ohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvudelfeektdekveeuteehteehgfehge dtkeeukeevueekueelteehhedvjeffgeenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhm pdgurhgrfhhtqdhivghtfhdqhhhtthhpsghishdqtggrtghhvgdqhhgvrgguvghrrdhmug dphhhtthhphhgvrgguvghrshhnohhtjhhushhtthhhihhsohhnvgdrihhmpdhmnhhothdr nhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:5GQcYQ3AgzvSkyn149aAFbInHdtJqlB32id5YXiDFWkfVdZ17yj6pA> <xmx:5GQcYeE35EOWRjiMdsdQklIL9sOXjSynWJlWlILKcr5TabFNfgTkvQ> <xmx:5GQcYR-NshSSofRGnydraN-kOQFDEHKhxaO8w50srte6lfr3zoU9uQ> <xmx:5WQcYagucpPKT_BGsPhEONfNt2IB4Rnc2ehVlgGp-bouC1a4Z4oLRA>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <bba84e3b-30bb-4b6a-03ac-2d2c66921c0e@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 11:39:44 +1000
Cc: art@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CB24D355-DFF9-4863-84E4-624498FEE21D@mnot.net>
References: <162858283141.12857.10508033655815270480@ietfa.amsl.com> <DCA2B147-0C8C-45DA-9F8D-7939A0926089@mnot.net> <bba84e3b-30bb-4b6a-03ac-2d2c66921c0e@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/6zyXoMPlL7wJCvGCgxRbVMM-8Ks>
Subject: Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header-09
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 01:39:56 -0000

Hi Martin,

I've addressed all of these in the latest commits on:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commits/main/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header.md

... except for:

> Thanks! In terms of content, that's a great example (three layers, detailed explanations). But we suddenly have three header fields rather than just one. If I understand correctly, that example could also be written
> 
> Cache-Status: ReverseProxyCache; hit,	
>   ForwardProxyCache; fwd=uri-miss; collapsed; stored,	
>   BrowserCache; fwd=uri-miss
> 
> As far as I remember, there isn't any text that discusses trade-offs or recommends one or the other or says they are equivalent. But maybe I missed something?

That's because this is the case for all HTTP headers, not just this one. I'm extremely reluctant to re-specify or explain how HTTP works in any great detail in this specification.

Cheers,



--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email