Push and Caching
Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Tue, 19 August 2014 15:25 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 990791A0412 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:25:46 -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, 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 QYfuPRznmITh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:25:44 -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 5E5081A03A8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XJlF5-0004d2-KH for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:22:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:22:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XJlF5-0004d2-KH@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1XJlEc-0004Zc-PW for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:22:06 +0000
Received: from mail-bn1blp0188.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([207.46.163.188] helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1XJlEX-0005Sx-Kb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:22:06 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.230.24) by BL2PR03MB130.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.230.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:21:34 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.11]) by BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1010.016; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:21:34 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: Push and Caching
Thread-Index: Ac+7v7yD0ZTj4Oj/Q2KCGy9THej6Jg==
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:21:34 +0000
Message-ID: <dc3d860ecb4b4d408a5ed0519a036e61@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2601:8:9680:4b4:b4f1:be98:82b1:5ebf]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0308EE423E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019006)(199003)(189002)(110136001)(77982001)(19617315012)(33646002)(20776003)(105586002)(86362001)(15975445006)(95666004)(107886001)(81342001)(229853001)(2656002)(99286002)(81542001)(46102001)(79102001)(74662001)(74502001)(74316001)(99396002)(80022001)(21056001)(4396001)(87936001)(83322001)(76576001)(85306004)(86612001)(15202345003)(107046002)(106356001)(83072002)(108616004)(77096002)(85852003)(101416001)(50986999)(16236675004)(19625215002)(19300405004)(19580395003)(54356999)(76482001)(3826002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB130; H:BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_dc3d860ecb4b4d408a5ed0519a036e61BL2PR03MB132namprd03pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=207.46.163.188; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XJlEX-0005Sx-Kb 5c714fe46dcb9bb57955e906d5a2c86b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/dc3d860ecb4b4d408a5ed0519a036e61@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26656
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>
Something we remarked on internally a while ago, but I keep forgetting to raise with the WG.... We had a discussion with Martin a long time ago about caching and push - specifically, that you can push a response to a cacheable request, regardless of whether the *response* is cacheable. Martin said (off-list): You'll note that the text does not prohibit what you describe there :) The text says that the request needs to be cacheable. It also says that the method needs to be cacheable. It says nothing about the response. Pushing a response with Cache-Control: nocache is perfectly OK. However, the spec does now prohibit exactly that, in 8.2: A server can only push responses that are cacheable (see [RFC7234]<http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#RFC7234>, Section 3<https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/specs/rfc7234.html#response.cacheability>) promised requests MUST be safe (see [RFC7231]<http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#RFC7231>, Section 4.2.1<https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/specs/rfc7231.html#safe.methods>) and MUST NOT include a request body. I missed when that change happened. Can someone with better git-fu remind me? Was there list discussion?
- Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- RE: Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Patrick McManus
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- RE: Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- RE: Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Chris Drechsler
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Push and Caching Michael Sweet
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins