Re: ID for Immutable

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Fri, 28 October 2016 16:56 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 38C1B12964C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.352
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 0fj4dL9Exqjy for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:55:58 -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 75774129436 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c0ANZ-0000WA-3E for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:51:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:51:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c0ANZ-0000WA-3E@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 <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1c0ANU-0000UM-Mp for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:51:36 +0000
Received: from mail.measurement-factory.com ([104.237.131.42]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1c0ANP-0000vK-02 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:51:31 +0000
Received: from [65.102.233.169] (unknown [65.102.233.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.measurement-factory.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E73EE057; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:51:06 +0000 (UTC)
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CAOdDvNqam930_0eA1p3yHW+xDdOm0AAMKvVKe6xwNwm1itpRpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <f9f0e413-1fbb-1faa-833b-5dc7d7ea1fdc@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:50:55 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNqam930_0eA1p3yHW+xDdOm0AAMKvVKe6xwNwm1itpRpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.237.131.42; envelope-from=rousskov@measurement-factory.com; helo=mail.measurement-factory.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.703, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.418, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c0ANP-0000vK-02 71b3648105ff38f23cd89f9952659ec5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ID for Immutable
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/f9f0e413-1fbb-1faa-833b-5dc7d7ea1fdc@measurement-factory.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32706
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 10/26/2016 03:02 PM, Patrick McManus wrote:

>    o  Clients should ignore immutable for resources that are not part of
>       a secure context [SECURECONTEXTS].

Please think of the children^H^H^H^H proxies. AFAICT, "secure contexts"
are currently a user agent concept. If the above "should" is meant to be
a "SHOULD", then the draft automatically disqualifies most proxies from
legally utilizing this promising "ignore reload" mechanism.


Thank you,

Alex.