Re: Design: Adding ASSOCIATED_ONLY

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 16:54 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 F319F21F9E8B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 VtDFRbsG-zuT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20B221F9E8F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Upi7X-00073H-QC for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:54:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:54:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Upi7X-00073H-QC@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Upi7K-00070E-2d for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:53:50 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.219.43]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Upi7J-0005xV-9q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:53:50 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id i7so8227937oag.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=N3NjqB7q1g770RLjnks6tP0yXSBQYkedD5x0cS7zF7U=; b=gCrIIed1JBewBb4VCXqRy52zOBQi9NkmY9QKOZsJJrBj/kHMHAxcx/ITZxh8A7Ye+s J2wsuGlCZsI3MvfRzVV7CN+FFi4cgykB8+NKWiOGZ1gJRRIOk/WLBMGgosP+rZfoB0Qu wLzAz3Gs6TSqyionTFomNVu8hilzI3nZAPm0cGrfrq8DQGr7GJzMDmKyBZVA9mm5bzFs qKXNUr+9MY4A2FA2p5hOOLHXYyeQzHR2BwiqWVv1vz5Jgs172qXr5j+TdEodAcEumely /a11KwJDYXBI4oeVIfwG1nwKqpWsxPTMOImvxTxBzi7Xg/GnE6eO3NZ4viSkb54S3g+x KgvA==
X-Received: by 10.182.120.102 with SMTP id lb6mr1950111obb.13.1371747203325; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.55.8 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C32BCD.10107@treenet.co.nz>
References: <CABP7Rbe29dHp3LZuWEMKJdVEkuHW2jOUK0sSyBuh6PFnq=9Z1A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUKnborWAtuxwEvWx7wR=JYdOTvWHbpPd6NJ5kXK0Sw9A@mail.gmail.com> <CABaLYCuhs5zmMHD9D7qNEhhUpvzWf1THHOjS5-vTu6soMUqALA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfreVJv=RZga+Y6iHxsOhmdheyjcvZ3dTNgW3drg4j2iw@mail.gmail.com> <CABaLYCsj3eWPurynfDc=gd5zm=_=vCfWM7ocKVJpHBhFPi3cNw@mail.gmail.com> <51C32BCD.10107@treenet.co.nz>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:53:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcYMPK81+ofJeP4T5OxS2+CWH0iafwktTwkr8ek_Lv5bA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.43; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.704, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Upi7J-0005xV-9q ddfceb434d90744906f9d98bb7c7b698
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design: Adding ASSOCIATED_ONLY
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7RbcYMPK81+ofJeP4T5OxS2+CWH0iafwktTwkr8ek_Lv5bA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18324
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 Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>[snip]
>
> Possibly. I can also think of a very likely scenario which this will cause
> problems for.
>
> 1) Middleware which is caching the pushed resources will not be happy to
> have them terminated incompletely received even if the user has closed the
> main non-cacheable stream.
>
> 2) Middleware serving the pushed objects up to multiple clients in parallel
> will be quite put out to have the streams discontinued underneath it simply
> because they were associated as secondary resources with _one_ particular
> client who went away.
> [snip]

Not following the thought here. There are several important things to remember:

1. Pushed-Streams are not shared, and
2. Pushed-Streams are always hop-by-hop

This was a point that was raised at the interim and discussed at length.

For example, suppose a client A sends a request through caching proxy
B to origin server C.

C receives the request and sends PUSH_PROMISE frames to B as part of
its response. B can accept those pushed streams from C but it is not
required to send PUSH_PROMISE frames to A. It can choose, for
instance, to just use the pushed streams to populate it's local cache
and have A send GET requests for each of those cached resources. There
might be a delay in B responding to those GET's while it receives the
data from C, but that's not important here. If B does decide to send
PUSH_PROMISE frames to A, those pushed streams are completely
independent of the streams C is pushing to B, even if they are for the
same resources. A can send a RST_STREAM to B terminating a pushed
stream, but that has absolutely no effect on the stream being pushed
from C to B, even if it is for the same resource. And A sending a
RST_STREAM for a pushed stream has absolutely no effect on any other
stream B might be pushing to any other client. So, sending a
RST_STREAM(ASSOCIATED_ONLY) has ZERO impact on what middleware might
do with multiple clients. It only terminates the pushed streams being
exchanged between two points.

- James