Re: Server Push Error Codes

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Wed, 24 August 2016 16:04 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 9966112D0AD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.468
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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=sendgrid.me
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 RdBdk-Zu2faM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:04:37 -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 5F04B12D192 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bcaaz-00083y-CM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:00:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:00:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bcaaz-00083y-CM@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 <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1bcaao-0005xE-8T for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:59:54 +0000
Received: from o1.30e.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.41]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1bcaaS-0002U3-Af for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:59:52 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=Mzbpo8Gt68HqVLObBaE56fEpsPQ=; b=pnLnaDLbbamRev5ziA /mAQmRXKcIgzp17JSBdUSRmKNe/jXNp68W4u/3wRrHEK+R7/jPNwoZRVXkt7Q+FZ 7lZsI+r/3doDyq6yJbpwGq+44/C4x6MoCUqtSDTVtPZUL3SqZ0+yl1lzBjHUh+wL sDsvZYApgNLZ0HPFeZoYQhf7A=
Received: by filter0946p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0946p1mdw1.9818.57BDC44322 2016-08-24 15:58:59.370702052 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-it0-f52.google.com (mail-it0-f52.google.com [209.85.214.52]) by ismtpd0005p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id R52A_P_HSiyFIHSBruNT7A for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:58:59.270 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e63so218183852ith.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvk7auCg4/IZcol3VAtABIGhvk842CS1xpIBi8b7BMG+8i/HFIMs6oZL/wh3LfuoKaRoOkuUczXdE2oyA==
X-Received: by 10.36.36.214 with SMTP id f205mr15055712ita.50.1472054338839; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.148.50 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2099D099-70BC-43E2-A3BD-2891C87FE74A@mnot.net>
References: <077CD10C-E189-47B0-A221-3EA270B2B55D@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVE8OBy_oxbw86ZNf0AHnywmTPAgEFNm8w9sSu-Q0FXKw@mail.gmail.com> <2099D099-70BC-43E2-A3BD-2891C87FE74A@mnot.net>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:58:58 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqrjyS99S_O01kgDMzGTwRd+Y4tmE=HVd4v=cD4fffiOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqrjyS99S_O01kgDMzGTwRd+Y4tmE=HVd4v=cD4fffiOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114741aef4ec0f053ad35bb5"
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh6FOCzKqKT6KNN/whFHBNMpij61fSi+virDYx p0zioPeeyeyfUBNfsZvrCLcHMlr7/Iu4CWQs4CLuk2bjV5Bmzr7zQvCQKcLs6qzSiBKYo1CvEeAuLr JhV1kCtq3R4B7MUV0dWeYFNlnUPhzPME8RdlIKxAsOGFAciTXZVD8p/Sk5i/pvzgQNMNTXDlOFkeVs k=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.41; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.30e.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.782, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.236, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_GREY=0.424, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bcaaS-0002U3-Af a6789b95b8d68a5ef0f3c41edc6ee80a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Server Push Error Codes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNqrjyS99S_O01kgDMzGTwRd+Y4tmE=HVd4v=cD4fffiOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32351
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>

I'm not real enthusiastic about push_is_cached.. it specifically leaks a
tracker. Admittedly its pretty easy to infer this anyway but I'd look
harder at it before codifying

as for push_unauthoritative, that's already a protocol error. I'm not sure
we need fine grained feedback to tune algorithms etc with.. you're just not
allowed to do that so it should be rare. I'm not opposed though.

I would be interested in both CONTENT_TYPE_NOT_SUPPORTED _and_
CONTENT_ENCODING_NOT_SUPPORTED .. I think brotli and webp are the
exemplars. CT could be hard to figure out, but might be worth special
casing the obvious stuff.