IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Sat, 29 June 2013 14:29 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 4E27511E814D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 A6SwdWAGalcX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F166621FA000 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Usw80-0000ph-7M for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:27:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:27:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Usw80-0000ph-7M@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Usw7e-0000or-Qu for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:27:30 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.219.50]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Usw7e-0007Rp-7B for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:27:30 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k7so3411524oag.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rPgwqW5SPWXFhgEn8pv8ETKchNVRDeblc4+F2TkS1gQ=; b=mI+fCOF+xQrWfSR2C1b2sdUh2wlINLYgXZnrY40r/9gQmxtSXG020erNVx5iMcNrkl F571H97PsxIw1sbILN6ThdGHFEi4pA97Jv54fHgGGPpbqcHWMsjULINjKpWVN538NNeE OwqYQ77wvIjKqQ6Zy/7Gw7Wf1qUuTSUDLgs6+8MjQsGDUIO4B8KOTk0InidIoZUkGuvM K/azC6NVmJGotHKGrYqeN9OGEKoWt6uIMp7VerymPNkJGWHBk6pxBYnvruq1T/jn1S1Q rQa2+i92MpmJRvvJDpSYDwImv+PL10C78f3Pqm3Qr+bH0b5iY6Hp9aHfqqJafgEiJj/n xR/g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.125.100 with SMTP id mp4mr1309071oeb.60.1372516024238; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.55.8 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.55.8 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51CE9415.6020900@treenet.co.nz>
References: <CABkgnnVGh9dLkfDrO2fq5TsnxwEu0Dff=LqJEJR5Odq2ibfDMg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcoSSSKJq3YbZ2ypw-xb0uOgFQcjcQP9tJdkgEjPfJVMA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdJcZ_x6RidaVfP+VPtA3CwAbALgAqhOhAjZLzaz4tQRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbf_pGKU-yB-f=6fB5WoVvs087eOf6Beo4DDHGJWYX5XTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNd9BDHBO2YXEfHwvRuiJDDpbAEvCMR2BKLzcoaARxjDJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcEf6s5s7Jk=NLKdrdU8fV1AsSJ4u-8CZNT8P7YXvxkag@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbdoBswznxwDm+-00egSHV+h7fO7Ow+aw+mFhLm2Z=GRWg@mail.gmail.com> <51CE9415.6020900@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:27:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbe==JGEr9ro9hUoW7HQCA6a+acryzic1HswftbSgvFy9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a83d612c73104e04bcaf6"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.50; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.704, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Usw7e-0007Rp-7B 9724737669254dae4832c945aed2cbbb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7Rbe==JGEr9ro9hUoW7HQCA6a+acryzic1HswftbSgvFy9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18417
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 Jun 29, 2013 1:03 AM, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>
[ snip ]
>
> The above example is a good one.
>
> The cache will store the pushed response under:
>   hash(URL)+hash(Vary:"image/jpeg")
>
> When looking up future HIT the cache for this client on explicit-GET it
will look up
>   hash(URL)+hash(Vary:"text/html, image/jpeg, image/gif")
>
> I assume you can spot the difference.
>

I didn't miss that. Pushed resources and content negotiation used together
have rather, um, "interesting" complications. However, those don't change
the request headers in the push promise and response headers in the HEADERS
question which is what I was addressing.

- James

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email