IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Push and Caching

William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 05:21 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4087D1A06EE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 O-AZhZj79UoU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FA6B1A06EC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XM9AT-00080M-2O for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:19:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:19:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XM9AT-00080M-2O@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <wchow@mobolize.com>) id 1XM9AA-0007zC-W5 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:19:23 +0000
Received: from mail-bl2on0097.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.55.169.97] helo=na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <wchow@mobolize.com>) id 1XM9A4-0004aq-SP for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:19:19 +0000
Received: from DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.176.22) by DM2PR05MB669.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.176.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:18:35 +0000
Received: from DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.176.22]) by DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.176.22]) with mapi id 15.00.1010.016; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:18:35 +0000
From: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: Push and Caching
Thread-Index: Ac+7v7yD0ZTj4Oj/Q2KCGy9THej6JgAEtB4AABO1Y4AAWKDXwAAA/BiwAAXBIYAAAme3gAAhH1uAAAA6DAAAlYD1AAANDLGAAACCPIAAB4OXAAADQUAAAAGZ9YAAAComUA==
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:18:35 +0000
Message-ID: <7dbd0d9cfc6a4d25b96beb20210f98fa@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <dc3d860ecb4b4d408a5ed0519a036e61@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnWvKgyDcm-1jEKZUA2Qza9M46X+X_QybwuqRwvSUrTjNw@mail.gmail.com> <B6B89855-237F-44DA-B29C-2A3BB5CE0EED@mnot.net> <920b92b90a3c47ef8d450c903b83af40@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <d94a3acceb954583a61b0118381df417@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAOdDvNpa5WR4LJbsgQaBE3bTSAc+gXfYqCmV+zmUzE5b7+1a9A@mail.gmail.com> <CECA0C1A-E64C-443A-87AF-22BC66286F72@mnot.net> <CABkgnnXVJA3R4qhc__k4j+_LzeS7B24VxfCZwBSfywepEx=tKA@mail.gmail.com> <40d03e3bb1df480e808e64fa29048880@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnX-0X+JZfFYhm18b=bLidaq_pqN5s-K0NBS28m-s6+9Kg@mail.gmail.com> <233C8C21-BF80-4E07-9717-56630085E192@mnot.net> <CABkgnnW9Uq5R1KvuTXuT=xUdX_pVWikyAOMp=ixJe+c0NRs4Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NHV_966DSX4yX-=tfDPUkk-obCXFbJnPifQpFb1KFjYDg@mail.gmail.com> <7d2fdc975fec4646b21e86620a834e72@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2C38B85E-7290-4AE3-A886-12A329DE449C@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <2C38B85E-7290-4AE3-A886-12A329DE449C@mnot.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [108.47.164.83]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 03152A99FF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009010)(6009001)(377454003)(51704005)(24454002)(189002)(199003)(106356001)(21056001)(4396001)(92566001)(105586002)(85852003)(90102001)(83322001)(15395725005)(80022001)(19580405001)(16601075003)(76176999)(31966008)(86362001)(66066001)(33646002)(79102001)(76576001)(15202345003)(74662001)(99286002)(74316001)(19580395003)(54356999)(74502001)(107046002)(95666004)(77982001)(46102001)(2656002)(85306004)(110136001)(87936001)(81342001)(15975445006)(64706001)(76482001)(99396002)(20776003)(81542001)(108616004)(101416001)(83072002)(50986999)(7059011)(18886065003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB669; H:DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: mobolize.com
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=65.55.169.97; envelope-from=wchow@mobolize.com; helo=na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XM9A4-0004aq-SP ca386abed7ed92dbdf7e826811b9c5af
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/7dbd0d9cfc6a4d25b96beb20210f98fa@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26738
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>

Can "fresh" work? I agree that it perhaps implies caching as well, but at least it avoids the notion that the server actually performed any validation (which it could not, without the client providing validators for the pushed responses).

--Will

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:07 PM
To: William Chow
Cc: Greg Wilkins; Martin Thomson; Mike Bishop; Patrick McManus; HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: Push and Caching

Well, we're trying to tie in the concept of cache validation (which is deeply part of the caching model) to this unnatural (to the caching model) interaction. Not sure how to do that without saying "validation"...

Cheers,


On 26 Aug 2014, at 3:04 pm, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com> wrote:

> Is "validated" the right term? It seems this could be confused with cache validation, which is only applicable to a cached response and is generally/intuitively viewed as a client-initiated action.
>  
> Also, which response is the point of reference for validity/freshness? The proposed sentence seems to refer to a pushed response being "validated" at the time that the pushed response itself was generated. I assume we'd actually want to treat the pushed responses to be fresh at the time the response for the associated/original request was generated.
>  
> --Will
>  
> From: Greg Wilkins [mailto:gregw@intalio.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:48 PM
> To: Martin Thomson
> Cc: Mark Nottingham; Mike Bishop; Patrick McManus; William Chow; HTTP 
> Working Group
> Subject: Re: Push and Caching
>  
>  
> On 26 August 2014 09:13, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> TAKE TWO:
> Pushed responses are considered successfully validated on the origin 
> server (...) at the time that the response is generated.
>  
> I'm good with this one.     I like the instantaneous nature of it.
> 
> Any attempt to define the ongoing validity of a resource implies that something will be checking that on the server side and overlaps with the cache control headers.
>  
> cheers
> 
> --
> Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that 
> scales http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status