IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Push and Caching

Chris Drechsler <chris.drechsler@etit.tu-chemnitz.de> Tue, 26 August 2014 11:35 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 088C81A6F84 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 04:35:20 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 4RxbTp7l2Uyv for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 04:35:17 -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 8FDEA1A6F86 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 04:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XMEyo-0003J7-PL for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:32:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:32:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XMEyo-0003J7-PL@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <chd@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de>) id 1XMEyN-0003Hy-H1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:31:35 +0000
Received: from nick.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.228.11]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <chd@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de>) id 1XMEyL-00042Z-Jc for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:31:35 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tu-chemnitz.de; s=dkim2010; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=UQpThJkmDmccySIcYsLeZluRleVKIXRwuEVVg4v4w0g=; b=XwycrCTdH/+++PyHK3L9PETsemkqVMGyR0JU9agRgK3eBmhVsilJYSHkkSKOM/Z2l23cfcu/uMprrr8ekaom3i5tQ/Q+bLatCVcjJumCPr9+/7sCgc2jn+VnUGiXcIPWkDXohipj4GEUOXywEt1Tc4uC6eJAGgpucvWXMMe3tcg=;
Received: from postman.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.133.5] helo=mailbox.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de) by nick.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <chd@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de>) id 1XMExt-0004UH-SS; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:31:09 +0200
Received: from vpnclient-195-147.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.195.147]) by mailbox.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <chd@mailbox.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de>) id 1XMExt-0004kB-OA; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:31:05 +0200
Message-ID: <53FC6FF2.1090702@etit.tu-chemnitz.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:30:58 +0200
From: Chris Drechsler <chris.drechsler@etit.tu-chemnitz.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
CC: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>, 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>
References: <dc3d860ecb4b4d408a5ed0519a036e61@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.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> <2C38B85E-7290-4AE3-A886-12A329DE449C@mnot.net> <7 dbd0d9cfc6a4d25b96beb20210f98fa@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CACweHNAxpaZRsK-Uu5biSvzt3kLhY4Bcw4pQgXSVcKYmKK-E_w@mail.gmail.com> <D92F296B-3E9A-42B3-978C-AC319C072C60@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <D92F296B-3E9A-42B3-978C-AC319C072C60@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: chd@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de
X-Scan-AV: mailbox.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de; 2014-08-26 13:31:05; 8548b449653d43b5559027dce966b137
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-ID: 154106::1409052665-0000046A-E2656CC0/0/0
X-Scan-SA: nick.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de; 2014-08-26 13:31:09; cb2b81032ec6a3098efa8b71168112c1
Received-SPF: none client-ip=134.109.228.11; envelope-from=chd@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de; helo=nick.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.301, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XMEyL-00042Z-Jc 4d087677f8c060a9fe958d6d6b1f2489
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/53FC6FF2.1090702@etit.tu-chemnitz.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26741
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 think pushed responses must not use "no-cache" in Cache-Control. Then 
there is no revalidation problem.

Chris

Am 26.08.2014 um 08:48 schrieb Mark Nottingham:
> "fresh on the origin server" isn't relevant; what's relevant is whether they're fresh in the cache, and that can be determined by examining the response.
>
> The issue at hand is whether the pushed response needs to be revalidated, as per the definition of no-cache.
>
>
>
> On 26 Aug 2014, at 3:49 pm, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:
>
>> On 26 August 2014 15:18, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com> wrote:
>>> Can "fresh" work? I agree that it perhaps implies caching as well,
>>> but at least it avoids the notion that the server actually performed
>>> any validation (which it could not, without the client providing
>>> validators for the pushed responses).
>>
>> "Pushed responses are considered fresh on the origin server (...) at
>> the time that the response is generated." Makes sense to me, although it
>> starts to sound a bit no-brainish.
>>
>> ​And regarding your other question:​
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> It can only be fresh at the time the pushed response itself is
>> generated, surely. The original response triggered the *need* for the
>> pushed resource, but there's nothing stopping the value of that pushed
>> resource changing between the need being determined and bytes being
>> transmitted.
>>
>> --
>>    Matthew Kerwin
>>    http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>

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