IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Wed, 03 February 2016 19:06 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214CE1B2B57 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:06:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 EtBqA2SwdIui for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:06:53 -0800 (PST)
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 5140C1B2B14 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aR2hB-00066p-Ey for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 19:02:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 19:02:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aR2hB-00066p-Ey@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 <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1aR2h3-000664-ES for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 19:02:21 +0000
Received: from mail-bn1bon0138.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.56.111.138] helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1aR2gy-0006Zb-GK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 19:02:21 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=1zlJ6LjAJK6FFLcD1ch2YIieNFI0/onP5Or55dae1NU=; b=mtRfGSCPZ34mnrZvhLU2bECrh31rhPNXYUEENHt9tmdiSMcdYXAYX4TG589uSRLCUjRY2XJl8lDTGPuYsHv1NFKPwJkWGiSaJ9ujo7AIaMRwnWXk0Z9IBZKK4a0DIazdtdYhc6G0lVaiPsXt6OUvIGBS13asHapVfy0hKepnIfc=
Received: from CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.163.16.28) by CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.163.16.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.396.15; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:01:48 +0000
Received: from CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.16.28]) by CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.16.28]) with mapi id 15.01.0396.020; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:01:48 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2
Thread-Index: AQHRS8n68Rt1mP2ZmkKFs7vlYUOcUJ73EqkAgBDPmQCABv9RgIAKUJMAgAAmPACAAIQeAIAA9fOg
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 19:01:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CY1PR03MB137425A025736905630C91BF87D00@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CANatvzxcKS46iAqAdfBHuWPt5k3XkR79NDMPPtDakOb2jPAywA@mail.gmail.com> <56A26B1E.4050303@rd.bbc.co.uk> <CANatvzyHbyrK7cjh+JsRpTR42knc6LXX7GWzj8ZEYPgv8cs49g@mail.gmail.com> <56B0F0DC.3060807@rd.bbc.co.uk> <56B110EE.5050705@treenet.co.nz> <CABkgnnU=BEPC=2X1f+DKDd11CrEG1awDG=j+J-Ha3B-mTPxfvA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnU=BEPC=2X1f+DKDd11CrEG1awDG=j+J-Ha3B-mTPxfvA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:8::4c7]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4a8dcd10-5f27-4bda-273a-08d32ccc77bf
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR03MB1374; 5:BD/cEW7FYZ9UJj4+hbcclRBjkR8p+wdPYDEJJXYefd1VIZxfDXS7MUqHw7+SUEjY1rzOucdCbviL6VhyKSMWDPQEa3ojTa3QpZugo8sDnoCqeoMOsfHs4QFxqcXfZy+k95pdw0ra0eL0sDAniZMhoQ==; 24:jmIfWVVbLyJVcx+sCEZ8WgTuOw1ExPFWVGRc9Hy3l6+jMcWLtDrUv5AGUUhuTC2l2xfr4eYQ/Zv//fsdqucc7HYBem7xztwFKMhTjriJFD0=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR03MB1374DAACF538DEC3B1A6993D87D00@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374;
x-forefront-prvs: 08417837C5
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(13464003)(24454002)(1096002)(4326007)(86612001)(19580405001)(5004730100002)(2906002)(19580395003)(87936001)(77096005)(86362001)(54356999)(76176999)(50986999)(5001770100001)(11100500001)(122556002)(40100003)(93886004)(99286002)(2950100001)(5008740100001)(189998001)(5002640100001)(76576001)(10090500001)(92566002)(102836003)(586003)(6116002)(5001960100002)(10400500002)(1220700001)(8990500004)(74316001)(10290500002)(33656002)(5005710100001)(5003600100002)(106116001)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR03MB1374; H:CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Feb 2016 19:01:48.1619 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR03MB1374
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=157.56.111.138; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.432, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1aR2gy-0006Zb-GK cf05a79b811b03dae0cbfd264130d006
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CY1PR03MB137425A025736905630C91BF87D00@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31041
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>

We had talked at one point about intentionally pushing very specific conditional requests which would always have a 304 response.  The client, upon receipt, would either know that the resource in the cache was fresh (and could update cache lifetimes) or realize that an object they will need is not in the cache, and request it.

Not something that we've implemented yet, but it's a valid scenario.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 8:19 PM
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2

On 3 February 2016 at 07:26, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> That is because PUSH by itself cannot do conditional requests. 
> Consider it to be the equivalent for a non-conditional request that 
> always gets the 200 status response with full new object and new expiry details.

This isn't strictly true.  You can server push a conditional request, and in fact it can be advantageous to do so.

Of course, the server doesn't always know enough about a client to make the *right* conditional request.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email