RE: ID for Immutable

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Wed, 26 October 2016 23:55 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 624281296BD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.452 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.com
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 Wb29gmU1F4YS for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
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 5B4BD129625 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bzXyB-0002vM-9Q for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 23:50:55 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 23:50:55 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bzXyB-0002vM-9Q@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 <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1bzXy4-0002tn-OW for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 23:50:48 +0000
Received: from mail-dm3nam03on0095.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.41.95] helo=NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1bzXxy-0004zo-D5 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 23:50:43 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=lkxt2yHBA++wJ7vT39J4CdEZDTYJWsUuadwbEEY6XYE=; b=EFlN5eUaIxTlwOlvD88ncYKGAJfM41K3Nw03L0XEpGV0NSTqT3DQfQnwl4yr6UQcOlxPbaLt4hghmenfcwpob1n8YGFFHYYSarRdHdBDwGYg1ycZvUocpKxGtn6Avdz3yYai7woRsLC859rYA8j1osw8XYn/liq/SHDq3b8Go/U=
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.15) by BN6PR03MB2705.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.679.12; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 23:50:12 +0000
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) by BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0679.015; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 23:50:12 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: ID for Immutable
Thread-Index: AQHSL80ctM92A2CfYkGWVwlCr5RHLaC7Y+GAgAADOfA=
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 23:50:12 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB27085E0172450097B8B2733287AB0@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAOdDvNqam930_0eA1p3yHW+xDdOm0AAMKvVKe6xwNwm1itpRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <f5bd0a86-57e2-7d6c-09a7-86d6a8639ce0@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <f5bd0a86-57e2-7d6c-09a7-86d6a8639ce0@treenet.co.nz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:6::672]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4fed5d72-0363-42c5-8d56-08d3fdfad3a3
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR03MB2705; 7:7piVhOP8PC+4EAURtBeb4Kf3CgRBopfKwngop64F1eRSu922K4QXVKGR+HOix2xDxInZSgkq79L/NCFf99scOkB5wSX7JawD0Xu/7chmq0ocrX4XUFcH8CfFS70w1gZiGxhwqX09VsZiuAHxdNTwqrM3IaKVumiwINNpnAGttk5T9wGqA1Dov+ZhxhUyAPBP7++pAFumZknWS8sCYfwn+eE6AmZnC0g7CBDACsHpbQ8uW/cvuPS8ikb9qaMEbIZNtzXuXnkQTMe4MwRxrh/aBGFnWf22bM5pkUwHn3kmNWbOAmGAeIwkT0QaAJBAdNP+bKPWD8jRWJAlvzhL9Mnh2NoGzAVn7w0Ir67b6BdOh/J0r06HMX++2uvbuiE+nuDP
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN6PR03MB2705;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR03MB27052868F9CC4157DA1E65BA87AB0@BN6PR03MB2705.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(35073007944872);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040176)(6045074)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038)(6046074)(6072074); SRVR:BN6PR03MB2705; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2705;
x-forefront-prvs: 0107098B6C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(13464003)(377454003)(199003)(69234005)(189002)(24454002)(377424004)(87936001)(68736007)(3280700002)(122556002)(92566002)(2950100002)(86362001)(8936002)(2501003)(5660300001)(3660700001)(106356001)(5001770100001)(4001150100001)(107886002)(86612001)(97736004)(8676002)(81156014)(106116001)(105586002)(81166006)(99286002)(7116003)(5002640100001)(7696004)(189998001)(10090500001)(9686002)(7736002)(10290500002)(54356999)(11100500001)(74316002)(76176999)(101416001)(10400500002)(5005710100001)(50986999)(586003)(305945005)(76576001)(15975445007)(6116002)(7846002)(3480700004)(33656002)(2906002)(77096005)(19580405001)(19580395003)(2900100001)(8990500004)(102836003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2705; H:BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Oct 2016 23:50:12.3213 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR03MB2705
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.47.41.95; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1bzXxy-0004zo-D5 1df891c3a2158e21126786679fdd9c9b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: ID for Immutable
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/BN6PR03MB27085E0172450097B8B2733287AB0@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32676
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>

I'm reading between the lines here, and would like to see your questions answered in the document.  However, I would interpret this as:  The cache should behave as if it *did* revalidate the resource and received a 304.

If the client sends an unconditional request, it should get a 200 and the stored payload.  If it sends a revalidation request, it should get a 304.  Whatever you would normally do when you revalidate your stored resource and find it still good.

-----Original Message-----
From: Amos Jeffries [mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:36 PM
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ID for Immutable

On 27/10/2016 10:02 a.m., Patrick McManus wrote:
> [as individual]
> 
> FYI
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-mcmanus-immutable-00.txt has been 
> successfully submitted by Patrick McManus and posted to the IETF 
> repository.
> 
> Name:           draft-mcmanus-immutable
> Revision:       00
> Title:          HTTP Immutable Responses
> Document date:  2016-10-26
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          4
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcmanus-
> immutable-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcmanus-immutable/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcmanus-immutable-00
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>    The immutable HTTP response Cache-Control extension allows servers to
>    identify resources that will not be updated during their freshness
>    lifetime.  This assures that a client never needs to revalidate a
>    cached fresh resource to be certain it has not been modified.
> 


This control seems like it will also be useful for proxy caches to prevent relaying the same revalidations from older clients that don't support the control.

However the draft does not mention any proxy handling.

* does it override must-revalidate etc on the stored response?
 - what about proxy-revalidate?

* does it override a client request max-age=0 and/or request no-cache?
 - the stated intention implies that it does.

* assuming immutable overrides those client reload signals; is the proxy supposed to deliver a 200, 304 or 4xx to clients sending max-age=0 ?

* how does immutable interact with the 'must not send on re-use' headers?
 - ie. no-cache="Set-Cookie", private="Set-Cookie" and similar cases ?

Amos