Re: [httpbis] #432: Review Cachability of Status Codes WRT "Negative Caching"

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 18 February 2013 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 EA06821E805A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:13:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IR20jBdw26ap for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:13:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB82A21E8055 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:13:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U7ELX-0001oE-K8 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:12:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:12:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U7ELX-0001oE-K8@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1U7ELP-0001nQ-VR for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:12:31 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1U7ELK-0007zm-8F for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:12:31 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.197.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AAB64509B6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:12:04 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <1B168529-9ECB-4A4D-9EC2-190447DB6B72@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:12:00 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2B8C0176-F957-4B69-B264-99CF556BD858@mnot.net>
References: <059.77033a1709a94099b974f5d7985e94b6@trac.tools.ietf.org> <1B168529-9ECB-4A4D-9EC2-190447DB6B72@mnot.net>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.358, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U7ELK-0007zm-8F bdc9be1484cf9717141dfd0d6f8aaaa8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [httpbis] #432: Review Cachability of Status Codes WRT "Negative Caching"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/2B8C0176-F957-4B69-B264-99CF556BD858@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16638
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>

I haven't seen any discussion, and this is our last ticket (at least for the moment).

So, I'll make a proposal; we should identify the following additional status codes as cacheable (i.e., eligible for using a heuristic to determine freshness, in the absence of explicit information);

	• 204 (No Content)
	• 404 (Not Found)
	• 405 (Method Not Allowed)
	• 414 (Request URI Too Long)
	• 501 (Not Implemented)
	• 502 (Bad Gateway)
	• 503 (Service Unavailable)
	• 504 (Gateway Timeout)

Note that I'm *not* proposing the following, even though they are negatively cached by some implementations, as I suspect doing so may cause interop problems:

	• 400 (Bad Request)
	• 403 (Forbidden)
	• 500 (Internal Server Error)

Thoughts?



On 11/02/2013, at 5:28 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> ... and this is the ticked I just promised:
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "httpbis" <trac+httpbis@trac.tools.ietf.org>
>> Subject: [httpbis] #432: Review Cachability of Status Codes WRT "Negative Caching"
>> Date: 11 February 2013 5:27:44 PM AEDT
>> To: mnot@pobox.com
>> Reply-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>> 
>> #432: Review Cachability of Status Codes WRT "Negative Caching"
>> ----------------------------+-----------------------------
>> Reporter:  mnot@pobox.com  |      Owner:
>>    Type:  design          |     Status:  new
>> Priority:  normal          |  Milestone:  unassigned
>> Component:  p6-cache        |   Severity:  In WG Last Call
>> Keywords:                  |     Origin:  #223
>> ----------------------------+-----------------------------
>> Currently, the following status codes are defined as cacheable -- that is,
>> able to be stored without any explicit freshness information:
>> 
>> - 200 (OK)
>> - 203 (Non-Authoritative Information)
>> - 206 (Partial Content)
>> - 300 (Multiple Choices)
>> - 301 (Moved Permanently)
>> - 410 (Gone)
>> 
>> However, many caches store other status codes (often called "Negative
>> Caching")
>> 
>> For example, both Squid and Traffic Server (which have considerable market
>> share, and form the basis of many other implementations) negatively cache
>> the following status codes:
>> 
>> - 204 (No Content)
>> - 400 (Bad Request)
>> - 403 (Forbidden)
>> - 404 (Not Found)
>> - 405 (Method Not Allowed)
>> - 414 (Request URI Too Long)
>> - 500 (Internal Server Error)
>> - 501 (Not Implemented)
>> - 502 (Bad Gateway)
>> - 503 (Service Unavailable)
>> - 504 (Gateway Timeout)
>> 
>> While some of these may be bad to cache by default (in particular, 400 and
>> 500), others may make sense: for example, 204 seems straightforward, and
>> 404 seems high-value.
>> 
>> The major concern here is making semantic changes to the protocol.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/432>
>> httpbis <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>
>> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

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