Re: #486: Requiring proxies to process warn-date

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 20 May 2013 01:38 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 A1A1521F8ED8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 18:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.055
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.055 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.544, 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 LOnd6w+Xfb8D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 18:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF3821F8EA6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2013 18:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UeF1k-0005fU-MU for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 20 May 2013 01:36:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 01:36:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UeF1k-0005fU-MU@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UeF1Y-0005eg-VP for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 20 May 2013 01:36:28 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UeF1Y-00087K-9l for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 20 May 2013 01:36:28 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.105.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B60422E1F3; Sun, 19 May 2013 21:36:05 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <A73CEF6C-EE77-462C-BA7E-80147A948D31@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 11:36:02 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <51907161-4A59-4225-A61D-414A322DB589@mnot.net>
References: <D528E812-45A0-426F-972F-3F4AC6F8DEA7@mnot.net> <519413CF.7010007@measurement-factory.com> <A73CEF6C-EE77-462C-BA7E-80147A948D31@mnot.net>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.397, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UeF1Y-00087K-9l 97644a83585193cdf4c42934c18c31ff
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #486: Requiring proxies to process warn-date
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51907161-4A59-4225-A61D-414A322DB589@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18032
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 17/05/2013, at 11:40 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>>> and the second to be "If a recipient receives...", also removing
>>> "forwarding" later down.
>> 
>> This would not be sufficient because "using" may be interpreted to
>> include "forwarding". How about this:
>> 
>> "A response sender MUST NOT generate warning-value with a warn-date
>> different from the Date value in the response. A cache MUST NOT send a
>> warning-value with a warn-date different from the Date value in the
>> from-cache response. A recipient MUST ignore a warning-value with a
>> warn-date different from the Date value in the response."
>> 
>> Would that cover all important cases without being too restrictive (like
>> requiring the cache not to store something when there is no harm in
>> storing, only in serving from the cache)?
> 
> I think so, although we should remove the first 'response'.

Looking at this again:

> A cache MUST NOT send a warning-value with a warn-date different from the Date value in the from-cache response.

This has the effect of requiring caches to check warning-values in all cached responses; do we still want to require that?


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