IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Push and Caching

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Fri, 22 August 2014 19:00 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 98EC91A0B79 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:00:36 -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 462MQ2PIGwug for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:00:35 -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 53ACA1A0B02 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XKu1l-0000ur-JX for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:57:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:57:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XKu1l-0000ur-JX@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1XKu1R-0000s6-1t for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:57:13 +0000
Received: from mail-bl2lp0205.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([207.46.163.205] helo=na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1XKu1Q-0005k5-3I for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:57:13 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.230.24) by BL2PR03MB130.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.230.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:56:33 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.11]) by BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1010.016; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:56:33 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: Push and Caching
Thread-Index: Ac+7v7yD0ZTj4Oj/Q2KCGy9THej6JgAEtB4AABO1Y4AAWKDXwAAA/BiwAAXBIYAAAme3gAAhH1uAAAA6DAAAAStJgAACAnqA
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:56:33 +0000
Message-ID: <45e313be48fe4de6ab7e9ad5240141ba@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnW5NMo8ZuxzHVb+z=9z6NXDZf40iQY75qDcBNfzOWAdeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:ee31::2]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0311124FA9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(13464003)(377454003)(189002)(199003)(24454002)(79102001)(81542001)(21056001)(74316001)(99396002)(110136001)(105586002)(31966008)(86362001)(2656002)(20776003)(33646002)(77982001)(81342001)(74662001)(90102001)(92566001)(74502001)(80022001)(46102001)(85306004)(99286002)(76576001)(4396001)(106356001)(87936001)(83322001)(107046002)(54356999)(101416001)(77096002)(19580395003)(50986999)(83072002)(93886004)(76482001)(95666004)(108616004)(76176999)(19580405001)(85852003)(64706001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB130; H:BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=207.46.163.205; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.760, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XKu1Q-0005k5-3I 1913ac964ba73dc4199584fac8dd7193
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/45e313be48fe4de6ab7e9ad5240141ba@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26711
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>

Actually, Gabriel pointed out that since you can't validate the MAY from external observation, it should be non-normative, and the MUST NOT (presumably) duplicates an existing requirement that uncacheable things not be cached.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 10:58 AM
To: Mike Bishop
Cc: Mark Nottingham; Patrick McManus; William Chow; HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: Push and Caching

On 22 August 2014 10:30, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> "While the stream identified by the promised stream ID is still open" - meaning that as long as the client has asked for it before the server has finished sending it?  That's a fairly small amount of time, particularly if the resource is very small, but sounds like a good starting point.

I'm sure that clients can fail to notice the END_STREAM flag for as long as they need to in order to ensure that the various races resolve in the right way...

Trying to determine how long the window is after END_STREAM arrives in which clients can consider the response validated is nasty.  I don't know how to finesse this other than turning a blind eye to small violations, the likes of which you (and Firefox too) are committing in this regard.

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status