Re: ID for Immutable

Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> Sat, 29 October 2016 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E62D12946C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 22:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 uuShzGWznMWc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 22:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F262129466 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 22:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c0MWt-0006mi-UV for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:50:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:50:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c0MWt-0006mi-UV@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1c0MWq-00057z-Pr for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:50:04 +0000
Received: from smtpvgate.fmi.fi ([193.166.223.36]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1c0MWk-0003SS-JO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:49:59 +0000
Received: from souk.fmi.fi (souk.fmi.fi [193.166.211.113]) (envelope-from hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi) by smtpVgate.fmi.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/smtpgate-20161014/smtpVgate) with ESMTP id u9T5nUn4024088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:49:30 +0300
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi by souk.fmi.fi with ESMTP id u9T5nUpg019625 ; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:49:30 +0300
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by shell.siilo.fmi.fi with ESMTP id u9T5nUmf023237 ; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:49:30 +0300
Received: by shell.siilo.fmi.fi id u9T5nThC023236; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:49:29 +0300
Message-Id: <201610290549.u9T5nThC023236@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNpi=TxEf+W5vX8V3rCh8yB2P14pgO6bFXKthODRaU_y-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOdDvNqam930_0eA1p3yHW+xDdOm0AAMKvVKe6xwNwm1itpRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161028144407.48EFF162D1@welho-filter4.welho.com> <CAOdDvNpNAUccK0FO2HyvL7etnxEg2FRt0tvXwXxkR1q5wLy_gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNpi=TxEf+W5vX8V3rCh8yB2P14pgO6bFXKthODRaU_y-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:49:29 +0300 (EEST)
Sender: hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi
From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
CC: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version ME+ 2.5 PLalpha43]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: 3 received headers rewritten with id 20161029/61032/01
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: ID 61032/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Filter: souk.fmi.fi: ID 27669/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtpVgate.fmi.fi [193.166.223.36]); Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:49:30 +0300 (EEST)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=193.166.223.36; envelope-from=hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi; helo=smtpVgate.fmi.fi
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.704, BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.418, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c0MWk-0003SS-JO da96c5913d2f75f31312545b0434e8ed
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ID for Immutable
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/201610290549.u9T5nThC023236@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32720
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>om>: (Fri Oct 28 18:01:12 2016)
> Hey Kari, In my distaste for response header hashes, I did hastily neglect
> to mention that one of my implementation corner cases was to ignore
> immutable in cases of weakly framed content.. we define weakly framed as
> responses terminated by EOF or with Content-Lengths that don't match, or
> chunked encodings without a 0 chunk at the end. Experience has shown that
> we have to accept these responses for reasons of interop - but discretion
> says to ignore immutable on them as they may be indications of corruption.
> The ID should mention this - I'll put in -01. Thanks.
> 
> worth noting here that the refresh conditional-request path that immutable
> impacts has never helped much with the corruption case.. it conditionally
> verifies etags or l-m, but generally the corruption is in the message body
> - most often truncation. so a 304 reply confirms to the client to keep
> using the corrupted content anyhow.. 

So on these case that heuristic that ignore immutable for
"weakly framed content" does not help either. 304 reply
still confirms to the client to keep using the corrupted content.

My suggestion using immutable=<property from bydy> for ignnoring
immutable was making that more explicit than heuristic. But
that does change  is that ignoring usefull or not.

/ Kari Hurtta