IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 17 March 2015 07:35 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 A3D911A000D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 XsFwWqazZG8e for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:34:55 -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 857971A00DB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YXlyd-0003Wd-9s for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:31:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:31:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YXlyd-0003Wd-9s@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1YXlyS-0003VU-8J for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:31:36 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1YXlyR-0004Qo-Dp for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:31:36 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.154] (unknown [120.149.147.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68F1F22E200; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:31:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <5507D5D6.6060903@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:31:07 +1100
Cc: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F632A10C-0BF6-42FB-866A-66D3C0424B51@mnot.net>
References: <CABkgnnUDKqPttrp0T-fyrenkgEm=YzwbdmoaJ=Jti3ER1SEAMw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJgBKoq_M3xMu5115j+OTudSNMNGwOakXjKRP=odVMPn_A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXRw7Rc7MJddW4UqSo2=hQ2E2EysLyzcaVM6_xf7h0R9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJiG+pNAitg6z0wuL16NDnBp0tNwQhpvEWXs77x_c3f=2Q@mail.gmail.com> <53F34F02.2090807@gmx.de> <CABkgnnVQqYhDyLBvfaqD7oWGjY7WuvuSqWERwjoH=bQeh8k79g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJiD6_3SZd-k7FXCcwuA4AK7kXVupqXuy2+XuQKWtqP2xA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnW+QM8brr2FkBnOHAhFi9kjdrVoZ+yThckbURq9V5jmnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJhHz1mk0vdVtwmwyccv=LqUb+GrYVukkUYJY4mWdHE-mg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWENAO=4TnwK9Rtxudh+SQTzhrwRZdp=Et4DhPjU7m5_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJjG1xv+FXM9=KVR=WBM9DcMweYEzhokKdkRZN2VyDffmg@mail.gmail.com> <E977E2BD-AFCF-4C32-B99C-B747CD4E6412@mnot.net> <38E70447-193C-4F7A-8722-9019B6B20BC8@mnot.net> <2C673963-18EC-4E66-8EE8-76140B0907C3@mnot.net> <5507D5D6.6060903@gmx.de>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
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=-6.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.505, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_IRA=-2, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-0.1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YXlyR-0004Qo-Dp 4914bc8238a7b816c1dfee701f0875a0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/F632A10C-0BF6-42FB-866A-66D3C0424B51@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28981
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>

Think so…


> On 17 Mar 2015, at 6:20 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 2015-03-17 06:42, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I’m not hearing any pushback on this, so I’ve marked #16 as editor-ready, with this note:
>> 
>> “””
>> Discussed on-list. Cache invalidation is to be scoped to a specific discovery mechanism; e.g., the alternatives you discover via the response header will be invalidated when you see a new response header, while those that were discovered via the frame will be invalidated only when a new frame is received.
>> 
>> This means each mechanism needs to define its own exact invalidation semantics, and probably needs to be capable of carrying multiple alternatives.
>> “””
>> 
>> Cheers,
> 
> We have two mechanisms, and both can carry multiple alternatives, right?
> 
> So what's left to do is to state the invalidation semantics?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status