Re: Push and Caching
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> Wed, 27 August 2014 02:32 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3DC71A037F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 XDTbf96c12G4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82D401A037E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XMSyM-0005q7-Pw for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:28:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:28:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XMSyM-0005q7-Pw@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gregw@intalio.com>) id 1XMSy4-0005op-5Z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:28:12 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gregw@intalio.com>) id 1XMSy1-00019k-Sv for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:28:10 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hi2so5034684wib.17 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Frz4I2IYvKQlqu+qI1VMK9Pw71KrXMzRIKCT421k6Dc=; b=eFqGwTlFrIq3sy2JnU6qloG/qut/zCK71GCzApFSjWU6ban16OQodih93oVnGnxvtl 7j9as3QvCs84r/UCULfpEP2zyb7nTK66sXiAhxVKWNO3IzRsKAtdjpRgDgQycTbapNEI x4Jd/uZ9Wv7wlSabCmJrN6JB3QxbIeQIHZ84wDaVKYbCZ1kLRywcB5Rq94zbCI4YFoAI BXKadHminag9zNYrn0pn0RLk6lpLUcBHtPt9DWz/HeWONGkK7LD6jcza4Hr8Uh5FEB2N wroJM1V/WhZE1Z9BRkXnkhLx28xja4FZlvEr3J/k70/xr4rfIamKc+IrEa40DGJGJm4K Ia0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlc906F5dkZyjquF5HVz9rPKYPkppIoPYh19BuyMPxjqAtiD+UNr8FoCKV8zJi5lcUpRbZq
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.20.175 with SMTP id o15mr9995957wie.74.1409106462962; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.169.98 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUXs=0U_m6bX4g=B9w+MnXdixe_Vo=HnCcAp8NgtE7xpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dc3d860ecb4b4d408a5ed0519a036e61@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnWvKgyDcm-1jEKZUA2Qza9M46X+X_QybwuqRwvSUrTjNw@mail.gmail.com> <B6B89855-237F-44DA-B29C-2A3BB5CE0EED@mnot.net> <920b92b90a3c47ef8d450c903b83af40@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <d94a3acceb954583a61b0118381df417@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAOdDvNpa5WR4LJbsgQaBE3bTSAc+gXfYqCmV+zmUzE5b7+1a9A@mail.gmail.com> <CECA0C1A-E64C-443A-87AF-22BC66286F72@mnot.net> <CABkgnnXVJA3R4qhc__k4j+_LzeS7B24VxfCZwBSfywepEx=tKA@mail.gmail.com> <40d03e3bb1df480e808e64fa29048880@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnX-0X+JZfFYhm18b=bLidaq_pqN5s-K0NBS28m-s6+9Kg@mail.gmail.com> <233C8C21-BF80-4E07-9717-56630085E192@mnot.net> <CABkgnnW9Uq5R1KvuTXuT=xUdX_pVWikyAOMp=ixJe+c0NRs4Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NHV_966DSX4yX-=tfDPUkk-obCXFbJnPifQpFb1KFjYDg@mail.gmail.com> <7d2fdc975fec4646b21e86620a834e72@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2C38B85E-7290-4AE3-A886-12A329DE449C@mnot.net> <D92F296B-3E9A-42B3-978C-AC319C072C60@mnot.net> <9C64D35C-49BF-47F7-8D72-EFA2DA546FEA@gbiv.com> <22238EC5-50F4-4611-9FED-39E3D7B67B10@gbiv.com> <CABkgnnWssBqVw+aSb_8y80JBRWkQ8H+MPvmYZ7MyzOkYUQwWTQ@mail.gmail.com> <DE38D1FB-C9E1-441F-BDCE-9258714E0D96@gbiv.com> <02fc4b73d8004853b4286d02acbcc942@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnWXiivor8cTrHiAsL8uyJ-42FsiF44_103c7M+w2e797A@mail.gmail.com> <ee6c28ad51ab4022a6346ffb836bf770@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnUXs=0U_m6bX4g=B9w+MnXdixe_Vo=HnCcAp8NgtE7xpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:27:42 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NEWLYc=bEdREF0RFL+ToHmWZP3F5U=1M1XTggAG8sZjgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec53d5abd2d0f970501932ad4"
Received-SPF: permerror client-ip=209.85.212.178; envelope-from=gregw@intalio.com; helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.085, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XMSy1-00019k-Sv 66755d81cb7ca99086e11fcb5807dc49
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAH_y2NEWLYc=bEdREF0RFL+ToHmWZP3F5U=1M1XTggAG8sZjgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26755
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>
On 27 August 2014 09:22, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > Any association between a request and any server pushes it generates > is largely incidental from the perspective of what we are talking > about right now (caching, validity, general usability). Each > request-response pair can be considered completely independent in that > regard, in fact, in virtually all respects. Caches can and should > treat each independently. > Which is why I think wording that relates handling of a pushed response to the normal handling of a requested response is the way to go. If the validity/use/visibility of a request response can be seen beyond the scope of the associated request, then so to can a pushed response. We want pushed resources to be handled no differently than if the client had requested them. In the case of a no-cache response, the client does handle with an associated to the current page, but if there is no association for other responses, than saying pushed response handling is indistinguishable from requested response handling, captures that. cheers -- Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
- Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- RE: Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Patrick McManus
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- RE: Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- RE: Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Chris Drechsler
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Push and Caching Michael Sweet
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins