Re: ID for Immutable

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Sat, 29 October 2016 12:50 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115691294D0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.831
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.831 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 afpMdhQyCGyU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:50:48 -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 CF9501200DF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c0T2T-0006gy-Co for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 12:47:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 12:47:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c0T2T-0006gy-Co@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>) id 1c0T2O-0006g7-OE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 12:47:04 +0000
Received: from www.ducksong.com ([192.155.95.102] helo=linode64.ducksong.com) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>) id 1c0T2I-0000ZP-PA for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 12:46:59 +0000
Received: from mail-it0-f51.google.com (mail-it0-f51.google.com [209.85.214.51]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C3903A020 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:46:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-it0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e187so17277303itc.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvd3FpY0ruIWJo+g7k6v1dNLDy3n5ZvX/tOwq8Q1tbdGhOfUaNY01hpJGBPmiHwUu9saGRi+yZgKbUDnIA==
X-Received: by 10.107.58.70 with SMTP id h67mr14467275ioa.115.1477745197026; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.228.236 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201610290549.u9T5nThC023236@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
References: <CAOdDvNqam930_0eA1p3yHW+xDdOm0AAMKvVKe6xwNwm1itpRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161028144407.48EFF162D1@welho-filter4.welho.com> <CAOdDvNpNAUccK0FO2HyvL7etnxEg2FRt0tvXwXxkR1q5wLy_gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNpi=TxEf+W5vX8V3rCh8yB2P14pgO6bFXKthODRaU_y-g@mail.gmail.com> <201610290549.u9T5nThC023236@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:46:36 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpzhzg3z=foGv3sO0VNCAjAkNvrjO=OerrHADfHf3yQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpzhzg3z=foGv3sO0VNCAjAkNvrjO=OerrHADfHf3yQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114a8ef6899b6a0540005d11
Received-SPF: softfail client-ip=192.155.95.102; envelope-from=pmcmanus@mozilla.com; helo=linode64.ducksong.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.605, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c0T2I-0000ZP-PA 76868f573fd0e16c11b0f03e25db245f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ID for Immutable
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNpzhzg3z=foGv3sO0VNCAjAkNvrjO=OerrHADfHf3yQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32724
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>

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
wrote:

> > worth noting here that the refresh conditional-request path that
> immutable
> > impacts has never helped much with the corruption case.. it conditionally
> > verifies etags or l-m, but generally the corruption is in the message
> body
> > - most often truncation. so a 304 reply confirms to the client to keep
> > using the corrupted content anyhow..
>
> So on these case that heuristic that ignore immutable for
> "weakly framed content" does not help either. 304 reply
> still confirms to the client to keep using the corrupted content.



this was kind of my point - they are linked. so in cases of weakly framed
we eschew all conditional revalidations and that includes the special case
of immutable. The refresh happens non-conditionally.

I think the right document language is more along the lines of what martin
suggests