IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Push and Caching

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 24 August 2014 08:55 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 09BA91A0174 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 01:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 vk8g_AyZX9HA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 01:55:31 -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 A876D1A8727 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 01:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XLTXv-00013R-NQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 08:53:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 08:53:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XLTXv-00013R-NQ@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 1XLTXb-0000zi-64 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 08:52:47 +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 1XLTXa-0007wP-5G for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 08:52:47 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.60] (unknown [118.209.123.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C92F22E1F3; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 04:52:22 -0400 (EDT)
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> <CABkgnnW5NMo8ZuxzHVb+z=9z6NXDZf40iQY75qDcBNfzOWAdeQ@mail.gmail.com> <0BB3C239-C22A-434E-ABD9-BD559CBC0A5A@mnot.net> <CAH_y2NG_W4_3REoTTNAs3BRW3tj-kdK2NnQDPG8Tb7f4TK=pjA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NG_W4_3REoTTNAs3BRW3tj-kdK2NnQDPG8Tb7f4TK=pjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-889317C9-CCBB-4139-8BC8-8FD62E0841D3"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <0E28667E-9B9D-4556-A41C-5F46E20F5B3E@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:52:16 +1000
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
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=-4.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.123, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XLTXa-0007wP-5G c5e3a0a252b4958f714fd1d0f60adc9d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0E28667E-9B9D-4556-A41C-5F46E20F5B3E@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26724
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>

That feels like it'd fit better in the web perf wg's work, eg resource timing. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Aug 2014, at 6:44 pm, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 24 August 2014 17:42, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> I'm OK with that mostly because if you push something with CC: no-cache and it isn't considered valid five seconds later, well, you got what you asked for, didn't you?
> 
> Hmmm that makes me think.... is there some way the client could give some feedback to the server so it knows if a pushed resource was used or not?  It does not need to be timely, but it would be good to log so that servers can know if their push strategies are working with the current crop of browsers / caches etc.
> 
> It would be bad if we created a universe where server developers think they are really smart and push all sorts of resources that we never find out if they are used or not.
> 
> Maybe we could add a flag to push promise, that if set would cause a pushed resource usage summary to be sent, either after a period or when the connection is closed.   Or is there some other way we can monitor the success/failure of push?
> 
> 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.

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