Cacheability of 421 (Misdirected Request)

Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com> Mon, 11 April 2016 08:36 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 EA7E512E93D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, 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 UDNU1x_afj2U for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:36:56 -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 7284612E936 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1apXG3-0001fx-Nd for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:31:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1apXG3-0001fx-Nd@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1apXG0-0001fC-H8 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:31:40 +0000
Received: from raoul.w3.org ([128.30.52.128]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1apXFz-0005Qp-D2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:31:39 +0000
Received: from platy.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.7] helo=[192.168.1.40]) by raoul.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1apXFy-00066q-SL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:31:39 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
Resent-From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 04:19:56 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:31:35 +0200
Resent-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Name-Md5: efe3dad792d606410c9cc49cedaffc94
Message-Id: <CALHHdhwPrpFRApRHAHufYBphBVX9NCc8HfxLEpnw6CGM+YBqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1apXFz-0005Qp-D2 cecf965a26c908324554545743b1da3c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Cacheability of 421 (Misdirected Request)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CALHHdhwPrpFRApRHAHufYBphBVX9NCc8HfxLEpnw6CGM+YBqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31416
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>

Hi,

RFC 7540 Section 9.1.2 says that responses with status code 421
(Misdirected Request) are cacheable by default. I think this is wrong.
HTTP cache key is based on the request URI, so if a client were to
cache a 421 response, it would then use this cached 421 to satisfy
further requests to the same URI, before it has a chance to connect to
the right server.

I think the paragraph about cacheability should be removed, so that
the general "not by default" rule applies from RFC 7231 Section 6.1.
Or maybe even rewritten to say "Responses with the 421 status code
MUST NOT be stored by a cache," as in RFC 6585.

Should I report an erratum, or am I missing something?


-- 
Vasiliy