IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why should caches and intermediaries ignore If-Match?

Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org> Fri, 17 February 2017 22:45 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 3637B12978C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:45:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org
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 9p11Z_tmV77U for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:45:53 -0800 (PST)
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 0DB5512966D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cerFR-0002Ue-18 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:43:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:43:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cerFR-0002Ue-18@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 <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1cerFL-0002LQ-Mi for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:43:23 +0000
Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1cerFF-0000qe-38 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:43:18 +0000
Received: by mail-wr0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 89so32819375wrr.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:42:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g1jnuQ+PMCX/rolC8kdv/KgKopxZSblzLL3VN+9t4iA=; b=Y15JcIiK5K4tmTHpMCs1VRW047aPrPo3bFWqM3JJ0DH8Cg+/AWcPIW6KbCWTHB9Ohk Bn1qx0gikK3q6pfqhQhriGJATkfqAYcumCz8UZyRzvZLHzEPtmPr6ZMXEMJQXU+VbkBO p1p2AddJc+yZOHJ7DUp/BXagfXLILIAZSmAOs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g1jnuQ+PMCX/rolC8kdv/KgKopxZSblzLL3VN+9t4iA=; b=bt9KMoJ6Q7MRiVaXWK+cLaANjkVEqTUqMs8+a/x198nsI1nMmDc/pqiL4VO2hhATLZ tN0rz/ymGOKvblFxNnkzDAOb3TAn2dhbtnRE3TLy+WJe1/wNOXPc5bvTYE+xK28YSVQT KafL9f8eGdkzt0FndCVsjBIMyN9fXQXLR1gXWiROttXs7HR1JYTdECuW4tg2qpsDe8CA 38UkpETUIXHJb7Wj3+p3vEcikZ99v2HLmWLySedLFMXnRxmwM6PjDCegTfRuV7GpeatN A4/QK2D9zu8pDFisfdTxmKaaw0+mwSWqYUe3DWnv6orBwE04XTiEZgj5MKJPzsnjpkNI CK0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kK4gOCdVL6b7cY37o1/erUcXp+wiPxZ+Ci88Cru5zfALA3v25SkTLSJRtPtXIfkqwx
X-Received: by 10.223.130.114 with SMTP id 105mr2095427wrb.41.1487371370211; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:42:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com (mail-wr0-f170.google.com. [209.85.128.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b51sm14614242wrd.39.2017.02.17.14.42.49 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:42:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 89so32819184wrr.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:42:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.223.136.123 with SMTP id e56mr8118448wre.28.1487371368932; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:42:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.135.201 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:42:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <42df8204-c302-784d-312c-4c272b5842ed@measurement-factory.com>
References: <CA+3+x5FgdfAQ4Nos9VTGe35RiH8Z+3zZiUGH_bKXHz+VO+UAbQ@mail.gmail.com> <aaedcb18-2a19-9b77-95d9-0559e21407c2@measurement-factory.com> <CA+3+x5E_HPycm4axSLtO0jGmjDBS3=kVfhaJzKR+7n7S_yMgkg@mail.gmail.com> <42df8204-c302-784d-312c-4c272b5842ed@measurement-factory.com>
From: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:42:48 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CA+3+x5FHyAiLbZpfkrY1_wLhkj2YLQ8c-_m-6FtDdum211ty3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+3+x5FHyAiLbZpfkrY1_wLhkj2YLQ8c-_m-6FtDdum211ty3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114987021871d40548c1a238"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.128.170; envelope-from=tombergan@chromium.org; helo=mail-wr0-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.808, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-3.296, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cerFF-0000qe-38 4dcd5973845842e1f10018deb103a5fb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why should caches and intermediaries ignore If-Match?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+3+x5FHyAiLbZpfkrY1_wLhkj2YLQ8c-_m-6FtDdum211ty3g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33581
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 Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Alex Rousskov <
rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:

> On 02/17/2017 03:06 PM, Tom Bergan wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> >     On 02/15/2017 04:43 PM, Tom Bergan wrote:
> >     > if the cache does not have an allowed ETag, then the
> >     > request should be forwarded to the origin. Does that sound right?
>
>
> >     It sounds reasonable to me but it would violate the original RFC 2616
> >     text and go against the letter (but perhaps not the intent) of the
> new
> >     HTTPbis rules.
>
>
> > I don't think it would violate the original RFC 2616 text?
>
>
> AFAICT, it would violate the following RFC 2616 Section 14.24 MUST:
>
> >    If none of the entity tags match [...]
> >    the server [...]
> >    MUST return a 412 (Precondition Failed) response.
>
> A [caching] proxy is a server.
>

Ah yes, you're right.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email