Question on draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-latest / RFC7234

Matthias Pigulla <mp@webfactory.de> Tue, 19 November 2019 08:24 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 28744120251 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:24:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 0K7sTsDrjuKY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:24:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9B971200B3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:24:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1iWylc-00029r-Uc for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:21:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:21:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1iWylc-00029r-Uc@frink.w3.org>
Received: from uranus.w3.org ([128.30.52.58]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mp@webfactory.de>) id 1iWyla-00027q-Sj for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:21:42 +0000
Received: from www-data by uranus.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mp@webfactory.de>) id 1iWyla-0007GN-AK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:21:42 +0000
Received: from titan.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4c]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mp@webfactory.de>) id 1iWdMI-0008Ch-N5 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:30:10 +0000
Received: from smtprelay05.ispgateway.de ([80.67.18.28]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mp@webfactory.de>) id 1iWdME-0001xF-RO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:30:10 +0000
Received: from [10.240.177.40] (helo=EXFE06.EXCHANGE.INT) by smtprelay05.ispgateway.de with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <mp@webfactory.de>) id 1iWdMB-0004X0-Mo for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:30:03 +0100
Received: from EXDAG23-1.EXCHANGE.INT (10.240.178.166) by EXDAG23-2.EXCHANGE.INT (10.240.178.167) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:30:03 +0100
Received: from EXDAG23-1.EXCHANGE.INT ([10.240.178.166]) by EXDAG23-1.EXCHANGE.INT ([10.240.178.166]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:30:03 +0100
From: Matthias Pigulla <mp@webfactory.de>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: Question on draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-latest / RFC7234
Thread-Index: AQHVnfLBfX43fZCNBkinXUspN8YZdg==
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:30:03 +0000
Message-ID: <9F36A6F8-0276-4F8C-B063-C4619901EBB1@webfactory.de>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.10.191111
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [78.34.221.140]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0A69078A51E3C746A53BADC263FE9D24@EXCHANGE.INT>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: none client-ip=80.67.18.28; envelope-from=mp@webfactory.de; helo=smtprelay05.ispgateway.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1iWdME-0001xF-RO fad9d79dc58b675fe61f005e436b4b62
X-caa-id: 5c054b5d28
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Question on draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-latest / RFC7234
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/9F36A6F8-0276-4F8C-B063-C4619901EBB1@webfactory.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37149
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Dear HTTP Working Group,

this is my first contact with this WG. I've tried my best to read about the necessary procedures and practices. If this the wrong place or way to ask, please excuse me and advise.

My question is on the semantics of the "private" and "public" Cache-Control directives as defined at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-06#section-5.2.2.6 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-06#section-5.2.2.5, respectively.

Both state that a (depending on context private, shared or both types of) "cache MAY store the response and reuse it for later requests, even if the response would normally be non-cacheable".

To my understanding, this does not intend to override the requirements from the "Storing Responses in Caches" section (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-06#section-3) altogether. Instead, I would assume that it only refers to the condition "has a status code that is defined as heuristically cacheable" in that section (or, as it was stated in RFC7234, "has a status code that is defined as cacheable by default")? 

Would it make sense to amend the list of conditions in that section, appending to the "the response either..." second-level list: "contains a private response directive if the cache is not shared"?

Thank you for clarification.
-mp.