Re: Call for Adoption: Proxy Status

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 23 April 2019 05:41 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 B668C120227 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 22:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 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, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=XbngxIw8; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=JNoadyJX
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 nwTAujC1ZDGK for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 22:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F29A1200F6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 22:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hIo93-0003J5-NY for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 05:39:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 05:39:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hIo93-0003J5-NY@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1hIo91-0003IL-L7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 05:39:03 +0000
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1hIo8z-0000Y4-0j for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 05:39:03 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BDD22040; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 01:38:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 01:38:38 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=0 sVnNWgx5Dxf9H2BdDqi9Dpwmb/DKVP8WooZWPU5dFo=; b=XbngxIw8crpHnl3xo tf/1oJ8G5SfYzUXZzkwAvBaFO8UavERTjWpkml8HQU71s6BlVl1VAf2SxspoCO9u O+LovJaqW/DmmgKT4nebGaIt/RnWbwm6bqj9UBmXhoBe5yNT7HotHds4p09YqlX2 hTlH4G0xoxea2QXW2fZ9wPTk1hK1ADwSeiE09YTNKoyrmYBvyvXDNSJHzjojAMyE KQ5JwwrrMtNt8F1P56cBH4vF/08I37naZ3XljPAO259wyfUaxrCPItqriVrKssX4 7o1kXQQIdYUshMdzOyzuAO7TfsAgl+Xe8fAycnu0p84sEnHh4JGMq6z0pMezV+Te 51EFQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=0sVnNWgx5Dxf9H2BdDqi9Dpwmb/DKVP8WooZWPU5d Fo=; b=JNoadyJXO7/Yqtd09qCTg52dTC+bLJwJO/FGTJWa6eJaVyY6AA88aLsXZ +gcBnKYcZKBmVtVd5CVdbLID9cQYgbP42j32pnByBolj+etgZ501pX9lGBmwpqkd OpGifs6FDuPbSizbcSrKDPa2ICkaKiEXJy3yziE9Ch9M4EuhbsVxg9IzlWpUwsvK nBL6bTtam0igA3gSKsDKY/lsj+2NUFmZOac3wu2TEyDIiL7m0mQ/fcLMHuszKMmj Eq45bdMWFt+iS6sp5Rqn6sVg5SeZYIEIpwAYEEbmFix/F1xhQtmdg3PdnsiIE1EK 4tFw8qbXx0KDkt91s2uZP0e0WZtog==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:3aS-XDT3udtXeZLXzN9fi-32IHMk_rAOPGcdnmf8hhrqhoHOzkHvgg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrgeejgdekjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeforghrkhcu pfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpe hivghtfhdrohhrghdpmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppedugeegrddufeeirddujeehrddv keenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvthenucevlh hushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:3aS-XBrOVCU9DOaW5OQ9vWsMLSRb5J4hSugQda2EqdoelfqlowZv9g> <xmx:3aS-XInSy68h1eCpAqc0Uo0qh0vQVoFM4WeGjh8Mm4yhUQL4cQITVQ> <xmx:3aS-XCfqu14vKswSRMvQM4iTrBPtZ6kgzEqg1x91cq5fODPqzZRn2Q> <xmx:3qS-XKxy-Z-Q7biHIakEDw6YLjGGurz_KJVcozHsZaTaJ3LsY-_dWQ>
Received: from attitudadjuster.mnot.net (unknown [144.136.175.28]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B23C0E405F; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 01:38:36 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <c5078c63-3c26-4daa-a186-c74718ac143a@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:38:34 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BB1546CE-850C-43A5-99B6-634AE8A1A626@mnot.net>
References: <8E2C757B-13CF-434E-BD3E-56166D57CE2B@apple.com> <39d04865-c30b-7bbc-ffd3-be523fb69d67@measurement-factory.com> <FFC92E91-6379-4D98-933A-996BF1522A53@mnot.net> <c5078c63-3c26-4daa-a186-c74718ac143a@measurement-factory.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.29; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=3.456, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hIo8z-0000Y4-0j 55ab78133d3453cd652ab2b3f85fdc63
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Proxy Status
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/BB1546CE-850C-43A5-99B6-634AE8A1A626@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36555
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Alex,


> On 23 Apr 2019, at 1:06 pm, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> 
> On 4/22/19 6:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> On 22 Apr 2019, at 2:50 am, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> On 4/10/19 6:24 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-proxy-status-00
> 
>>> I believe the scope of the document should be enlarged from the current
>>> "error details in the proxy-generated response" to something like "proxy
>>> status(es) when handling the message". After that, it should be adopted.
> 
>> Agreed; Piotr and I have already been discussing that. That said, we
>> should be careful to understand the delineation between this and the
>> Cache header.
> 
> I doubt we need two header fields sharing the same goal of reporting
> what happened at the proxy. One status header field is enough AFAICT.
> Any caching-related statuses are a subset of proxy statuses. The
> "universal" header must have a list syntax, but that syntax is required
> for each of the two header fields anyway.
> 
> If the Cache header has already been standardized, this draft can
> deprecate its early limited usage in favor of a "universal" Proxy-Status.

I disagree pretty strongly; caches can occur within the origin server (and one of the implementers interested in cache is doing exactly that), and caching semantics are detailed enough that they deserve separate attention and communication. 

Besides, we're trying to pave cowpaths here; Cache follows X-Cache, and this header is trying to align a variety of other behaviours. Let's not get too ambitious.

Cheers,


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