Re: Server Push and Conditional Requests

Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> Fri, 26 August 2016 11:44 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 86EA112D782 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.569 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=-0.548, 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=greenbytes.de header.b=ALAXw4G0; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=gke0lujx
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 jZ5XvUQdQuv0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:44:12 -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 56E1412D7D6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 04:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bdFPC-0005oY-Bk for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:34:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:34:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bdFPC-0005oY-Bk@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1bdFP7-0005ku-Bu for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:34:33 +0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de ([5.10.171.186]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1bdFP5-0003LV-JK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:34:32 +0000
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 117) id 455AB15A0A3F; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:34:04 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1472211244; bh=ASB6YqNCz4G8C+PYhKZEoONaZq9XshJ1Dk+9ACnPDlA=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=ALAXw4G0zP70RUfzcF+FJ7fMgoDXgTgBD+veaeAthuwfm7P1Nba/DT9YR7TFlvPXu xMfVVd31RI6Y04F9Z/39aDtINw4GaSZeHLJCZsUNzWAYjY2Tmy+yMcZtM2TvDL4od0 wbAy/AVhtS2752nRfUKsGiQAPeVbNiw18eklOvWc=
Received: from s2001app11.macromedia.com (unknown [87.78.30.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 534F515A041B; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:34:02 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1472211242; bh=ASB6YqNCz4G8C+PYhKZEoONaZq9XshJ1Dk+9ACnPDlA=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=gke0lujx8tH1+5cks6Mtx91PJHMGqxquMGE2vTbm+xRHUlBBTW0kWMF9ukw21AxzI yalTbEVNvgKjpoOmKcBCiw4tFUOokRa7j0yRS9SLSGRnWB6sgneEzksvB0glrzlqy5 4wJslMpsgLXi9EOzttxYnMzrQQdW2twwjyokSPXM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzw967Xw67eYy3+0-=oABdeU5SPiXk-iThXJww9bc=x-TA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:34:01 +0200
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <601BAF83-5ED1-4A4E-8A9E-979DDE5BCB1A@greenbytes.de>
References: <FCF25267-9CE8-4DDB-A0B3-29C23F81124E@mnot.net> <CANatvzw967Xw67eYy3+0-=oABdeU5SPiXk-iThXJww9bc=x-TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.10.171.186; envelope-from=stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de; helo=mail.greenbytes.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.234, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bdFP5-0003LV-JK 9b414d42333f7a0b22c1d8c163150273
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Server Push and Conditional Requests
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/601BAF83-5ED1-4A4E-8A9E-979DDE5BCB1A@greenbytes.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32363
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>

Isn't the unconditional PROMISED GET -> 304 better made a PROMISED HEAD -> 200?
 
> Am 26.08.2016 um 11:40 schrieb Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for starting the discussion.
> 
> Due to the following reasons, my preference goes to the third approach
> that uses unconditional GET.
> 
> For all of the three approaches, the client would need to verify the
> status code of the response, as well as the etag response header. For
> the first two approaches, the request header needs to be examined as
> well.
> 
> Considering the fact, I think from client’s perspective it would be
> easiest to go with the third approach (i.e. unconditional GET + 304).
> 
>> From server-side perspective, I agree that by using If-Match it is
> possible to send etag before sending the response headers. But I
> wonder if that has practical effect.
> 
> If the server has the knowledge of the current etag value, it can push
> the etag value as part of the response HEADERS frame right after
> PUSH_PROMISE. The two frames would typically go into a single TCP
> packet (note that a HEADERS frame containing a pushed response would
> be tiny thanks to HPACK).
> 
> So my feeling is that using unconditional GET + 304 would be the
> easiest to implement both on the client- and server-side, at the same
> time offering practically the best performance among the three
> approaches.
> 
> 2016-08-24 13:26 GMT+09:00 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:
>> Thinking about how Server Push interacts with conditional requests <http://httpwg.org/specs/rfc7232.html>, I can see three interesting modes of operation, outlined below.
>> 
>> 
>> 1. If-Match / If-Unmodified-Since
>> 
>> If the server has immediate access to the response being pushed (e.g., if the server is authoritative for it, or it is fresh in cache), it might want to send conditional headers in the `PUSH_PROMISE` request, to give the client the earliest possible chance to send a `RST_STREAM` (since the promised stream might be delayed due to priorities, etc.).
>> 
>> The most obvious way to do this with existing headers is using `If-Match` and/or `If-Unmodified-Since`; if the validator matches what the client has, it can send a `RST_STREAM`; otherwise, they can wait for the full response (which will presumably have validators matching those sent in the request).
>> 
>> ~~~
>> :method: GET
>> :scheme: https
>> :authority: www.example.com
>> :path: /images/1234.jpg
>> Host: www.example.com
>> If-Match: "abcdef"
>> ~~~
>> 
>> Here, when a client receives these headers in a `PUSH_PROMISE`, it can send a `RST_STREAM` if it has a fresh cached response for `https://www.example.com/images/1234.jpg` with the `ETag` "abcdef". If it does not do so, the server will continue to push the successful (`2xx`) response (since the `ETag` does in fact match what is pushed).
>> 
>> 
>> 2.  If-None-Match / If-Modified-Since
>> 
>> If the server does not have a fresh local copy of the response, but does have access to a stale one (in the meaning of RFC7234), it can `PUSH_PROMISE` with `If-None-Match` and/or `If-Modified-Since`:
>> 
>> ~~~
>> :method: GET
>> :scheme: https
>> :authority: www.example.com
>> :path: /images/5678.jpg
>> Host: www.example.com
>> If-None-Match: "lmnop"
>> ~~~
>> 
>> That way, the client again has an opportunity to send `RST_STREAM` if it already has a fresh copy with that validator in cache.
>> 
>> Once the server has obtained a fresh (possibly validated) response, it can either push a `304 (Not Modified)` response in the case that the `ETag` hasn't changed, or a successful (`2xx`) response if it has.
>> 
>> Note that if the client has a fresh copy in cache, but the server does not, the client can still use the fresh copy; it has not been invalidated just because the server has not kept its copy fresh.
>> 
>> 
>> 3. 304 (Not Modified) without a Conditional
>> 
>> If the server believes that the client does have a stale but valid copy in its cache (e.g., through the use of a cache digest), it can send a `PUSH_PROMISE` followed by a pushed `304 (Not Modified)` response to revalidate that cached response, thereby making it fresh in the client's cache.
>> 
>> If the server has a local copy of the response that it wishes to use, it can send the PUSH_PROMISE with an `If-None-Match` and/or `If-Modified-Since` conditional, as above.
>> 
>> However, if it does not, it will still be desirable to generate the `PUSH_PROMISE` as soon as possible, so as to avoid the race described in RFC7540, Section 8.2.1.
>> 
>> To allow this, a request without a conditional can be sent:
>> 
>> ~~~
>> :method: GET
>> :scheme: https
>> :authority: www.example.com
>> :path: /images/9012.jpg
>> Host: www.example.com
>> ~~~
>> 
>> When the response body is available to the server, it can send a `304 (Not Modified)` if it believes that the client already holds a copy (fresh or stale); however, it MUST include the validators to allow the client to confirm this. For example:
>> 
>> ~~~
>> :status: 304
>> ETag: "abc123"
>> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2016 04:34:12 GMT
>> Content-Type: image/jpeg
>> Cache-Control: max-age=3600
>> ~~~
>> 
>> In this case, if the client's cached response does not have the same `ETag` it SHOULD make a request to obtain a fresh response.
>> 
>> On the other hand, if the server determines that the client does not have the appropriate cached response, it can send the full, successful (`2xx`) response:
>> 
>> ~~~
>> :status: 200
>> ETag: "abc123"
>> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2016 04:34:12 GMT
>> Content-Type: image/jpeg
>> Cache-Control: max-age=3600
>> 
>> [ body ]
>> ~~~
>> 
>> Note that this approach relies upon an _implicit conditional_ in the PUSH_PROMISE request. If felt necessary, this can be made explicit, for example by defining a new conditional header `If-In-Digest`.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Which of these do people think are interesting to specify, implement and use? Are there problems, or other approaches we should be considering?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kazuho Oku
>