IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Call for Adoption -- Cache-Control: immutable

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Thu, 08 December 2016 04:58 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 28737129A92 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 20:58:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.897 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, 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 Nceb7Dxn0n9n for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 20:58:54 -0800 (PST)
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 5B462129C10 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 20:58:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cEqkz-00021L-7g for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 04:56:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 04:56:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cEqkz-00021L-7g@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 1cEqkn-0001y4-6v for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 04:56:21 +0000
Received: from mail-dm3nam03on0117.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.41.117] 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 1cEqkg-0006JX-80 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 04:56:15 +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=RCTg86Q0ljJABWnoef/o5ErYcWb2xEE7ImZrg9KfP6Q=; b=P6Vs/Rgu51o+4dexyHaJyB6OTLLgNIPZz2uTnb3tNS0T1G3JBoUe8B6oPOHXe2tG7bdIE4uU0ARAy8IpQV+yCSZQPHPVnC61uen/pRgz8/zg3zI9G2/hNza9xUG41u0K98b2fjeHmwYooYv0f+BUIo1GWhLAMVS+C+otCTPrL6M=
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.15) by BN6PR03MB2706.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.747.13; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 04:55:45 +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 15.01.0747.021; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 04:55:45 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Thread-Topic: Call for Adoption -- Cache-Control: immutable
Thread-Index: AQHSUQh8YrGn09l1wEaoi1n8t44eR6D9ewqw
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 04:55:45 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB270805B93CD50D7BF7F7D50A87840@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <95FCCB5F-A458-4BF8-A416-4B6FFD8B152B@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <95FCCB5F-A458-4BF8-A416-4B6FFD8B152B@mnot.net>
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: [2601:600:8300:3b9a:111d:fc95:8877:5328]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0a19f83f-b0b1-4796-5074-08d41f267852
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:BN6PR03MB2706;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR03MB2706; 7:iD3A8pqRB9swbBUCQnoco7v4Tjj+JJ2gr4Rh+tOiJvVqkyMspoXr3kk1LGX2vFeiUlGrNbhFqD4rNqFOO4Zd8ciLiH2jO1lYM6eOMUn/mPmQIjvvqesqL9Kot6YJ9uDG0QpDWSIAYM88p0pTypvVpduOvjR6STp+LnQsI7ageZ/k4g4p2Q98ZzByBz2RF+C/BpbOIJfgjH1hTULPrnITyl5fWe0HwObsC0tJkmBV2UTBkBnIiITXUT8ogb4BR35sgKvbPKexsPtIbYatIMZUbhhhPnRfibDsw4ZhaSJAIDekRk/XgktTTD/As8Dl7k9WqCvYtnZsfJ+xD5fxYiVpGY4Qr2UR2SSm34ayaLkKaQXkUW9oaZP5WoMgWsyQUN7ghFAlPyhWerMfvFEiZt2fmr3qGVfYjLu0klLwUnLR+feBWW5kXlsActatW7jc+b6NRh4HlnOJ8oLd+HAFGVsqDh6mqsjOl0I4LR66ulE6m/4=
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR03MB27067A57306049A65FBE502B87840@BN6PR03MB2706.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(10436049006162)(211936372134217);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(6072148)(6047074); SRVR:BN6PR03MB2706; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2706;
x-forefront-prvs: 0150F3F97D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39410400002)(39860400002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(39850400002)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(13464003)(5005710100001)(74316002)(81166006)(6116002)(102836003)(68736007)(5660300001)(9686002)(8936002)(76176999)(101416001)(6506006)(7696004)(7846002)(7736002)(3660700001)(3280700002)(50986999)(10290500002)(92566002)(122556002)(8990500004)(189998001)(97736004)(10090500001)(86612001)(86362001)(5001770100001)(54356999)(575784001)(2900100001)(38730400001)(305945005)(4326007)(106116001)(81156014)(99286002)(8676002)(76576001)(2950100002)(106356001)(77096006)(229853002)(33656002)(2906002)(105586002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2706; 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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Dec 2016 04:55:45.3390 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR03MB2706
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.47.41.117; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.748, 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_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cEqkg-0006JX-80 61228b8de5a046af1f5d38bd0982023d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Call for Adoption -- Cache-Control: immutable
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/BN6PR03MB270805B93CD50D7BF7F7D50A87840@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33129
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 generally favorable toward this idea, but will note one open question in my mind:  This seems to be very tightly tied to the scenario of hitting refresh on a page whose content frequently changes but whose dependent resources don't.  Putting "immutable" on those dependent resources helps reduce the server load and time taken when the user hits refresh, either in their own local cache or in proxies that are on path to the site.

There seems to be a parallel discussion (see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1vwx8WiUASKyC2I-2Dj2smNhaJaQQhcWREh7PC3HiIAQCo_edit&d=DgMFAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=1l7nWo9Y5pZ_Fce4oaurZQ&m=AlkS3R79U-PYonxL1dpzJx-7U842dQ1ecXQodjpgPSo&s=IRSkaXwsZPN79a5lIo4n-SJrwvSNDe2QQF3XichUZXo&e= for Chrome's) about softening the behavior of the refresh button to avoid force-refreshing all dependencies, which would likely have the same results.  Can someone point me to a scenario in which both are worth doing, or is this really a pair of mutually-sufficient solutions to the same problem?

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 8:04 PM
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Subject: Call for Adoption -- Cache-Control: immutable

As discussed in Seoul, there seems to be strong interest in adopting Patrick's draft:
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcmanus-immutable

Please indicate any concerns on-list; statements of support would also be helpful.

Regards,

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email