Re: Server Push and Caching

Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org> Wed, 24 August 2016 18:29 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 46D1D12D52C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org
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 uzk-WslcIPjN for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:29:10 -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 0C0A212D52B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bccqj-0004wT-5X for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:24:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:24:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bccqj-0004wT-5X@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1bccqb-0004vh-3P for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:24:21 +0000
Received: from mail-it0-f52.google.com ([209.85.214.52]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1bccqZ-00049u-1T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:24:20 +0000
Received: by mail-it0-f52.google.com with SMTP id n128so49336391ith.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MjO9kfduiSxrCb+odagKBrIn2Wk8PTfs0SbG4sritus=; b=ZtfC/Ed8Y5MNancfT+KmekPQLXXFfovbMy5ILiVNAFZWCNPaA+7lKW+kvqYCGisDNg S3GXqkrNuGZTVwVJ6WYdR2QJt+O+xVgtYPArRfn0hcAcPDAMAp1tyFNPY/CbClQUbkkZ GLc9mhlXHauJrOlz9dhKVow7o5B4x78OZCga4=
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MjO9kfduiSxrCb+odagKBrIn2Wk8PTfs0SbG4sritus=; b=U/0VP+ZhslcF2UGbmjPCXxDljV+Rz5OIOnQOflasws5U7+gHVjLW8kPl40zjmdS4yI +rJK7ybtFNrUe8KDFNQNq9htE1SFxAF6RRTfld3yY8ohKXU9QAuerLA3sREDqHDnt1aG IcXYIZoiu7VT1NfpuLgue5IIpfaF9gW6bh2ykjKlaHaEjZi1S3wsGI70lWVDTMmPtMiP OeVVZcIOK7UcYxL4MzyMTuIcSvdyWr3tikcN4/r0LLxdHu6Skke0Q2sFkqk0fXgXuseH CXgUcqU1N/r+hJFd4X52fT/+3IrXjbnxwzNvpjgsTtHXc971LEmptStWqA0zTmLYo9e3 8NaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuiLzqJls7oszj3AochCkK36OUI4WKPMwk5E9JGpYMY7RH1svUObDjltwchLTo7SjuK
X-Received: by 10.36.14.143 with SMTP id 137mr386247ite.98.1472063032758; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-f49.google.com (mail-it0-f49.google.com. [209.85.214.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k69sm3868068ioi.20.2016.08.24.11.23.52 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-f49.google.com with SMTP id e63so226563202ith.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.107.16.77 with SMTP id y74mr5443729ioi.161.1472063031647; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.48.136 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B42CD662-950E-4D91-AE73-29AFEE584E49@gbiv.com>
References: <3904FEC0-4362-47A0-886A-B97FB97E2515@mnot.net> <CA+3+x5F+KVMvfDu=+H0-ScqiYbGL5RPcF9wfZ5992Q=xcp1k8A@mail.gmail.com> <B42CD662-950E-4D91-AE73-29AFEE584E49@gbiv.com>
From: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:23:51 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CA+3+x5H9sQ3wnErAT2kvB9+G1Mxnzm7jf0DjO2=AZAADyEJaAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+3+x5H9sQ3wnErAT2kvB9+G1Mxnzm7jf0DjO2=AZAADyEJaAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e811c17247b053ad56292
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.52; envelope-from=tombergan@chromium.org; helo=mail-it0-f52.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.253, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bccqZ-00049u-1T 50a81328d72e252fd56521a0f4032fcf
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Server Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+3+x5H9sQ3wnErAT2kvB9+G1Mxnzm7jf0DjO2=AZAADyEJaAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32357
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 Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, the mistake above is in saying "response is stale … it will need to
> be revalidated".
>
> An HTTP client is not required to revalidate a stale response.  It only
> needs to do so when
> ensuring semantic transparency, which is something that user agents
> frequently don't do
> within the scope of a single session (instead, they make requests based on
> configuration
> or on the state of their own request processing).
>

Out of curiosity, can you walk through how you arrived at that
interpretation for this specific case? Are you essentially suggesting that
the "push store" (or "side cache") should be treated more like a history
list (RFC 7234, Section 6) rather than a true HTTP cache?