IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2

Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se> Tue, 09 February 2016 11:51 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A311A8953 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 03:51:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.28 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=-0.001, 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 1e3cqFUk1GRH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 03:51:18 -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 A69D41A8952 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 03:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aT6lO-0006i5-J5 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:47:22 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:47:22 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aT6lO-0006i5-J5@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 <alcidesv@zunzun.se>) id 1aT6lJ-0006gc-5q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:47:17 +0000
Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com ([209.85.213.44]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <alcidesv@zunzun.se>) id 1aT6l6-0001Pp-8d for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:47:16 +0000
Received: by mail-vk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id e185so115020980vkb.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 03:46:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zunzun-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EovaZBbeivL8VR/FktOrycXSE6ApkPbctsfn6TLARCw=; b=QdvjOu5+a4wQt/B73JFuYxAcel5EK9HFfExvm2CGMUw1D7bmqwKrvdrK3gwKCnr7qO +O8vhoRZ/GA7a1+RiZWqomsctnYtxXQdTfXpvPNEQSJcpYPVrKup30p9sIh3mhhVmJk/ uQ32fbnLDSGygbJVkLa2F2eP31MFQsofM3fND19FIUhsqifDdPhEa7bhMqfrqqjdjt65 yUhRsqS0/AOxqOHRo1Ir2GJSbnQKbx2Ab0PWGw2CjivqyssLzKN/WRNzcA7xYlfUwQZe HGRD9KhNkdTzErEi2J1skiRItTiw7AX2cOz9OSdLA1+mxEnGR+91A4+gV4C8HVFQwrl5 ytwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EovaZBbeivL8VR/FktOrycXSE6ApkPbctsfn6TLARCw=; b=DJSCHFLxg/fkHicD/Y4x0KWKFXwrRhLBjfcGPI1ohJmlKCTqx9YFXU2v9TzAn1IUzS dzqUeplp1ohKm+FToqUP1eo34hpcVtMXqcOQzWMmRoGQy7jSA32o/7/1TJ9uaLv/KZyy N1eGoeD9ExdgZQ9G5o8nA2CIvBB29/vVoMCJj9KYaHJMqqXJKoX/DNII9oCKkxOtJ3ng s0qniWWMhq07POTlLfST97UH8goe5xBANH7A4ele0IoVv2qixAeUbU2tPCj+BDbVCaRE zTS/2YeHGcgXhdfnKOeRW4fAH3HOBugJuAwUG0CBJfwnalUqKnoWkHNXxMDdZfw7gbYT OZuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORGd/iHbhDpHuyGQRNCvYtcncAcv3K5pNMao0rQRNJISWuXC6cmjEOzIoCjTxz7Y9ub1HTJZFtzpIBq4g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.13.79 with SMTP id 76mr23885514vkn.148.1455018396891; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 03:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.89.66 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 03:46:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR03MB137425A025736905630C91BF87D00@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CANatvzxcKS46iAqAdfBHuWPt5k3XkR79NDMPPtDakOb2jPAywA@mail.gmail.com> <56A26B1E.4050303@rd.bbc.co.uk> <CANatvzyHbyrK7cjh+JsRpTR42knc6LXX7GWzj8ZEYPgv8cs49g@mail.gmail.com> <56B0F0DC.3060807@rd.bbc.co.uk> <56B110EE.5050705@treenet.co.nz> <CABkgnnU=BEPC=2X1f+DKDd11CrEG1awDG=j+J-Ha3B-mTPxfvA@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB137425A025736905630C91BF87D00@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:46:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAMqGzbuSNYC6ResLR=NT5bLoDFDBn+=jjk00jKTN2v5TFSZ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11440cf8b04ffc052b54dec2"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.44; envelope-from=alcidesv@zunzun.se; helo=mail-vk0-f44.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.409, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aT6l6-0001Pp-8d 4449d14846e3752000cb30a09b27e397
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAAMqGzbuSNYC6ResLR=NT5bLoDFDBn+=jjk00jKTN2v5TFSZ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31060
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>

>> Not something that we've implemented yet, but it's a valid scenario.

Pushing 304 works both in Chrome and Firefox:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2F2m0rSqGCVWFJnTzRWOWFWQmc , we have
been doing it for some time.  But I agree that the HTTP/2 spec is very
vague regarding PUSH and cache interaction, I wish that could be
improved....


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> We had talked at one point about intentionally pushing very specific
> conditional requests which would always have a 304 response.  The client,
> upon receipt, would either know that the resource in the cache was fresh
> (and could update cache lifetimes) or realize that an object they will need
> is not in the cache, and request it.
>
> Not something that we've implemented yet, but it's a valid scenario.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 8:19 PM
> To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
> Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2
>
> On 3 February 2016 at 07:26, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> > That is because PUSH by itself cannot do conditional requests.
> > Consider it to be the equivalent for a non-conditional request that
> > always gets the 200 status response with full new object and new expiry
> details.
>
> This isn't strictly true.  You can server push a conditional request, and
> in fact it can be advantageous to do so.
>
> Of course, the server doesn't always know enough about a client to make
> the *right* conditional request.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email