IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Push and Caching

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 26 August 2014 05:10 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 0E10A1A06E7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 bKxw6XzD76KQ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:10:21 -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 CE4C01A06D9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XM8zR-0002VN-MV for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:08:17 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:08:17 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XM8zR-0002VN-MV@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 1XM8z9-0002UF-CI for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:07:59 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XM8yz-0001Ya-UH for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:07:56 +0000
Received: from [10.250.7.145] (unknown [203.3.109.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CB4622E1F3; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:07:20 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <7d2fdc975fec4646b21e86620a834e72@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:07:15 +1000
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2C38B85E-7290-4AE3-A886-12A329DE449C@mnot.net>
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>
To: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XM8yz-0001Ya-UH 54bc80a29f853ccfeab23b7f4da2b232
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/2C38B85E-7290-4AE3-A886-12A329DE449C@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26737
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>

Well, we’re trying to tie in the concept of cache validation (which is deeply part of the caching model) to this unnatural (to the caching model) interaction. Not sure how to do that without saying “validation”…

Cheers,


On 26 Aug 2014, at 3:04 pm, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com> wrote:

> Is “validated” the right term? It seems this could be confused with cache validation, which is only applicable to a cached response and is generally/intuitively viewed as a client-initiated action.
>  
> Also, which response is the point of reference for validity/freshness? The proposed sentence seems to refer to a pushed response being “validated” at the time that the pushed response itself was generated. I assume we’d actually want to treat the pushed responses to be fresh at the time the response for the associated/original request was generated.
>  
> --Will
>  
> From: Greg Wilkins [mailto:gregw@intalio.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:48 PM
> To: Martin Thomson
> Cc: Mark Nottingham; Mike Bishop; Patrick McManus; William Chow; HTTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: Push and Caching
>  
>  
> On 26 August 2014 09:13, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> TAKE TWO:
> Pushed responses are considered successfully validated on the origin
> server (...) at the time that the response is generated.
>  
> I'm good with this one.     I like the instantaneous nature of it.
> 
> Any attempt to define the ongoing validity of a resource implies that something will be checking that on the server side and overlaps with the cache control headers.
>  
> 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.

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

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status