IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Push and Caching

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Tue, 26 August 2014 05:52 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 DAE561A0487 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 0_ynSV5Wsna4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:52:31 -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 F2B721A0413 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XM9e0-0007tX-G1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:50:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:50:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XM9e0-0007tX-G1@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1XM9dh-0006aq-Dh for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:49:53 +0000
Received: from mail-qc0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1XM9df-00077s-Ob for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:49:53 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id m20so15098916qcx.35 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GsxAaDbuSkvOEHpMsrD7g17rQPhNYbWx3xl6Dj+LWw4=; b=TPpfVsaM8r5yf8gtlTIaRx/dI1rSn+HXiIB+Ptv+Q1wf47OLjqFEKOGLFegap6qY4B lWQ/w6aqsc/lVxCX+mE54nh33hB2ci9U6nd04NCi7/+kKq03vztsjnyxew0V9Wjj5bVl ZH2zyma1IqMio+OxEQ0bItlM73Ug0hBngw2/6eyiQgTCycQqI49vB8fn5dvoVKEtz0OG 69SzbUFCryn2ODy2tgr4tsbzDr4Dzi1mQclzqVLmuAQHVvgfVbZttnSwjHUhLZy40X0T vIC0It5fLNVkM4OvurskHSo7XjRsZQg4JqFbhbMNzZRVvBqg+b9ozV7nxUCfZD9/Mc0O GeyA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.26.12 with SMTP id b12mr42478097qac.92.1409032166174; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.25.139 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <7dbd0d9cfc6a4d25b96beb20210f98fa@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:49:26 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: wSepUQBX1bGjaH64DFuVYvMvxZ4
Message-ID: <CACweHNAxpaZRsK-Uu5biSvzt3kLhY4Bcw4pQgXSVcKYmKK-E_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 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>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc789ebdf6af050181dd04"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.176; envelope-from=phluid61@gmail.com; helo=mail-qc0-f176.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.744, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XM9df-00077s-Ob 4de2dd12c5efe185211cb55c1028be9e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACweHNAxpaZRsK-Uu5biSvzt3kLhY4Bcw4pQgXSVcKYmKK-E_w@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26739
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 26 August 2014 15:18, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com> wrote:
> 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).

"Pushed responses are considered fresh on the origin server (...) at
the time that the response is generated." Makes sense to me, although it
starts to sound a bit no-brainish.

​And regarding your other question:​

> 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.

It can only be fresh at the time the pushed response itself is
generated, surely. The original response triggered the *need* for the
pushed resource, but there's nothing stopping the value of that pushed
resource changing between the need being determined and bytes being
transmitted.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

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