Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers
Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Sat, 29 June 2013 05:36 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3909221F9E8B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c5qFTcU4p1Qc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FB321F9E86 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Usnof-0001i2-Aj for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:35:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:35:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Usnof-0001i2-Aj@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UsnoR-0001hD-57 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:35:07 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.219.50]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UsnoP-0006aT-Vk for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:35:07 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k7so3089907oag.23 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OIawOd3dt0HLFbi2NaHt9YMef/Whd/EG/fq5fOcRvlU=; b=u7f5vrwIn/iuGeXfEo2xzvMdkPsbSVwdLAe0Qj+16XFGD2HQtx7IcarHMvdKdLz7op j+vyzZrU8SU7B/YkDCjPqTkJnFuhio34j3Y5ybi/FkEAJ5vX/tJsF0yAKsqUp/BhDjxj 9XSbP06Jc2fvsDOhgaTamRR6wuG1UpFWWAGe69jBesgdbyiKjPEmMiqLfVPzaFWjQPk7 5zQYfPYw3tc/CiBzyWTC/3i4HKEixzEv18oFewUYpCNbU5NmMZPZ1Vwb0xHh1oCxZWi7 LxGnFRCl6tB9XK6J6UAl1MM/WprvkxUUaid/y2MZOdxZb15k1JuTeQR2CjoqxmFt4iwc ibxg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.171.74 with SMTP id as10mr7593534obc.70.1372484079808; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.71.10 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7Rbf_pGKU-yB-f=6fB5WoVvs087eOf6Beo4DDHGJWYX5XTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnVGh9dLkfDrO2fq5TsnxwEu0Dff=LqJEJR5Odq2ibfDMg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcoSSSKJq3YbZ2ypw-xb0uOgFQcjcQP9tJdkgEjPfJVMA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdJcZ_x6RidaVfP+VPtA3CwAbALgAqhOhAjZLzaz4tQRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbf_pGKU-yB-f=6fB5WoVvs087eOf6Beo4DDHGJWYX5XTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:34:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd9BDHBO2YXEfHwvRuiJDDpbAEvCMR2BKLzcoaARxjDJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff25454097b5b04e0445a2e"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.50; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.676, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UsnoP-0006aT-Vk f8155c1959f99d4ec8908d999122786f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNd9BDHBO2YXEfHwvRuiJDDpbAEvCMR2BKLzcoaARxjDJA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18408
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>
Any content negotiation would be an appropriate example. :) You don't want to have to wait for the HEADERS frame to indicate to the client which resource it might already have (it should have the opportunity to RST_STREAM if it has it in cache, for instance). -=R On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:25 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > Have an example handy? > > Here's an example that shows that response headers in the PUSH_PROMISE > would not be necessary... Let's say I send a PUSH_PROMISE with the > following bits of info... > > PUSH_PROMISE > :path = /images/f.jpg > :method = GET > :host = example.org > :scheme = http > accept = image/jpeg > if-match: "my-etag1" > cache-control: max-age=1000 > > These headers are giving me everything I would need to determine if > there is a matching resource in my local cache. I have the method, I > have the etag, I have the cache-control parameters, accept... There's > no need for response headers at this point. > > Later, once I start accepting the frames for the pushed content, I > would get something like... > > HEADERS > :status = 200 > content-type: image/jpeg > content-length: 123 > etag: "my-etag1" > vary: accept > cache-control: public > > On the off chance that the PUSH_PROMISE doesn't give me what I need, > the follow on HEADERS frame will give me the rest. > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Depending on how the request might have been been constructed, response > > headers may be necessary to identify the resource in the cache, as > compared > > to the resource specified in the HTML (I'm thinking about vary: stuff). > > > > -=R > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Let's take a step back and consider what a pushed stream is... > >> > >> A pushed stream is essentially an "Implied GET". This means that a > >> server is going to assume that the client was going to send a GET for > >> the pushed resource. This also means that the server has to make some > >> assumptions about the make up of that implied GET. > >> > >> Now, consider how HTTP caching works. When a cache receives a request > >> for a resource, how does it determine whether or not it has a > >> representation of the resource already available? Does it look at the > >> request headers or the response headers? Obviously, it looks at the > >> request headers. It uses the response headers when populating the > >> cache. > >> > >> So, if we look at the pushed resource sent by the server, what we need > >> is for A) the server to first let us know about the implied GET > >> request.. which means pushing down a set of request headers then B) > >> the server to send the actual resource, which means pushing down the > >> response headers. > >> > >> Already in our design for pushed resources, we have the server sending > >> a PUSH_PROMISE frame that contains a header block, followed by a > >> HEADERS frame that also contains a headers block. It stands to reason > >> that the PUSH_PROMISE frame would contain the set of request headers > >> that the server is assuming for the implied GET. These are delivered > >> to the client, which uses those to determine whether or not a cached > >> representation of the resource is already available (just as any cache > >> would do using the request headers). The server would then send it's > >> response headers in a HEADERS frame, just as it would any response to > >> any other kind of GET. > >> > >> Two examples to show how this naturally fits... First, let's look at a > >> normal GET request sent by the client to the server... > >> > >> Client Server > >> ------ ------ > >> | | > >> | ---------------------> | > >> | HEADERS | > >> | GET | > >> | /images/f.jpg | > >> | If-Match: etag1 | > >> | Accept: image/jpeg | > >> | | > >> | <--------------------- | > >> | HEADERS | > >> | 200 | > >> | Content-Type: | > >> | image/jpeg | > >> | Content-Length: | > >> | 123 | > >> | | > >> | <--------------------- | > >> | DATA....DATA.... | > >> | | > >> > >> Now consider the same resource being pushed by the server using > >> PUSH_PROMISE... > >> > >> Client Server > >> ------ ------ > >> | | > >> | <--------------------- | > >> | PUSH_PROMISE | > >> | GET | > >> | /images/f.jpg | > >> | If-Match: etag1 | > >> | Accept: image/jpeg | > >> | | > >> | <--------------------- | > >> | HEADERS | > >> | 200 | > >> | Content-Type: | > >> | image/jpeg | > >> | Content-Length: | > >> | 123 | > >> | | > >> | <--------------------- | > >> | DATA....DATA.... | > >> | | > >> > >> > >> Note that the only difference here is the direction and type of the > >> first frame. Everything else is identical. The PUSH_PROMISE contains > >> everything the client needs to determine whether or not it already has > >> the resource in it's local cache (request URI, etag, content-type...). > >> > >> There's no need to get any more complicated than this. We already > >> require two distinct header blocks for every request. We already send > >> two distinct header blocks for each pushed stream. We already indicate > >> that a pushed stream is an implied GET. To make it work, we simply > >> state that the PUSH_PROMISE contains the Request headers that the > >> server has assumed for the implied GET request, while the HEADERS > >> frame sent later contains the Response headers. If the request headers > >> in the PUSH_PROMISE end up not being adequate enough to properly > >> determine if the resource is already cached, then we treat it as just > >> another cache miss. > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Martin Thomson > >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/153 > >> > > >> > The current text describes PUSH_PROMISE as having a few request > >> > headers, plus some response headers, but it's quite vague. > >> > > >> > I think that if this is going to be properly workable across a wide > >> > range of uses with lots of different headers, PUSH_PROMISE needs to > >> > include two sets of headers: the ones that it overrides from the > >> > associated request (:path being foremost of those) and the ones that > >> > it provides as a "preview" of the response (e.g., ETag might allow > >> > caches to determine if they were interested in the rest of the > >> > response). > >> > > >> > > >
- [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers David Morris
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Amos Jeffries
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Yoav Nir
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Jeff Pinner
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Michael Sweet
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers David Morris
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Amos Jeffries
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- RE: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Mike Bishop
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Sam Pullara
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- RE: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Mike Bishop
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- RE: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Mike Bishop
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Amos Jeffries
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers William Chan (ιζΊζ)