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

Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 01:55 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 926181B3505 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:55:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 8GnA5vuAyKog for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:55:43 -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 641351B3503 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aTJvy-0007hZ-Mf for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:51:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:51:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aTJvy-0007hZ-Mf@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 <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1aTJvr-0007gH-HN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:51:03 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1aTJvp-0007pu-7L for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:51:02 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c200so8200787wme.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 17:50:40 -0800 (PST)
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=dy6/qQSkNYa3Fu80bWTQ/BF+qq8pPd50hker+kBgb2A=; b=zcW/mVr4pZ9vVdhCnEyH5teQPCvOmUurhwZBByLOLoe3U3x3mIvVzc7yPq/1VWaDBS ubE1Taj2hbywNr+L8YD8BdqpleoC388Y/bDy4PM9y1I01iXMdbul/8N0qw9O0WUkFCWN c6sZrYr7+/EqhbiVAQtkSqdLz/kdZk75zmOyjRHbDnNubOt5NWSsdyeU4LuLJyucz2O7 Sm3h19yhcdUuVGrmd5ZbaGyHVb5LHNlZkoN5MBqK89ukByJf4ErYe2iSiv5PX6Nbd97B p7j+ttwMfVEVxPt7o3uPJlVBzLJxdVecztQnXBXJjbhfomjs3micAlPAcBayN909bcZB 8euQ==
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=dy6/qQSkNYa3Fu80bWTQ/BF+qq8pPd50hker+kBgb2A=; b=NUjQ8+JipvD4ZB8a8lHO9QrWSdlp0BvaBEf5IwHcZgfa+dUDPs4xrVgedZMpsCXJ24 nW00stW6k0BhONiR1eNLBVRsOZUrUrz2XSnhQNlSMYVanYMtexmaX8lAi0yshei46++/ Bx4eovqCb/QiQIsX/zyGKjLEShQlDcPmjurmcmeJF3NoIX8I/lUvYO4FeR1q00i1m2oA J132M5yLS130Ly4pCCU1Vet5FAssFTgc3iKLkxfdRHvakrxRJQR4KR3tJ8vG2zmGDAzF kClGeUsrmmlUhPf/lgye2KVHoESP66m2IWfKB7F53jdM5A4XhrzZS8jz5ZXh08xGiiV5 y8+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS/l/nLnl8mOr/DFZoSp62z4jZaJ1H+GmKViHoPYB6tVh9O6jYCJsy2G58Y8eTn67uhr9GAnfMsZag+hA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.91.233 with SMTP id ch9mr22111977wjb.121.1455069034411; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 17:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.235.163 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:50:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAMqGzbuSNYC6ResLR=NT5bLoDFDBn+=jjk00jKTN2v5TFSZ5Q@mail.gmail.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> <CAAMqGzbuSNYC6ResLR=NT5bLoDFDBn+=jjk00jKTN2v5TFSZ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:50:34 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzzUQ+TEFZ5kML+Eagsb_O2pdmWosjMx_xspzrsCTy2hkA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
To: Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.52; envelope-from=kazuhooku@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm0-f52.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.817, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 1aTJvp-0007pu-7L 65f2c7da625db53f9850c40810d6d69a
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/CANatvzzUQ+TEFZ5kML+Eagsb_O2pdmWosjMx_xspzrsCTy2hkA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31062
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>

Hi,

2016-02-09 20:46 GMT+09:00 Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>:
>>> 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.

My understanding is that handling of pushed 304 in Chrome and Firefox
is unreliable.

When sending a push, a server cannot be 100% certain if the client has
the resource cached.  In other words, there is always a possibility
that the pushed response will be considered as a response to a
non-conditional HTTP request on the client side.

In other words, browsers that support 304 push should, when matching a
pushed 304 response against a HTTP request, check that the request is
conditional, and use the pushed response only if the request was
conditional (additional checks might be necessary).  Otherwise, the
pushed 304 request must be ignored, and the browser should pull the
unconditional HTTP request.

However, my understanding is that both Chrome (48.0.2564.103) and
Firefox (44.0.1) don't do the check; they consider pushed 304
responses to be a response to a unconditional HTTP request.
Therefore, there is a chance that you would fail to deliver the
correct content if you use 304 push today.

-- 
Kazuho Oku