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

Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se> Thu, 07 April 2016 19:01 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 A612212D6EC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.93
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zunzun-se.20150623.gappssmtp.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 Dd-5PWmTE_4Q for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:01:49 -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 952E712D73C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aoF6X-0002T2-Vw for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:56:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:56:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aoF6X-0002T2-Vw@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <alcidesv@zunzun.se>) id 1aoF6U-0002SH-7i for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:56:30 +0000
Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <alcidesv@zunzun.se>) id 1aoF6Q-0002mI-Uj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:56:29 +0000
Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id c4so111187028vkb.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
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; bh=6xQTxujBRhqN6xUK+Nok7QpYkCURJ9IzfzdJNV4NJY8=; b=qskeSjKTgmB7AdPeXM0NNdpYy0idRNjDzDQ8SSwK9c9W3bv7GXJzvtcBk0pVavGW3D 0v36X78vzITWfzO5ExLL8PKZQBwuuLB1wgcpPKmm5VjS3l4imI9SS80EA1yqT2SDLD3W V+1Zbjyrae9C1Td6Y3nSUOPvfK4UMp7ARFgU4/Baoa8oh/aF4r18BwbMjxJiCwxzQBpV zvFw3EQ0ez8t0sqgPXcACyba+twURmciW044rQ1ppTWshqTufTV42VvSaUbgN4r632oq RIGwU6wbq+jzNLfUv3eSKrODgX444rWwRw786ZkVPCpeK7QkZkYYa8XSpXZDhCvW5Y6s vtOw==
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; bh=6xQTxujBRhqN6xUK+Nok7QpYkCURJ9IzfzdJNV4NJY8=; b=EBbFVj6dCmUdmuYyl8D8WbClQgX5d1VmeP6b/T5S8JbJQK7zy1K26A4UVxLxhKWoYS HOyUUtK6m9QofwIJCjNeLgHtcgDrE9HPWuUVAiGayZpIPx3NjQBRaD+/nPrn+UkVFmj5 iXhi5TkXIi96MTje8O3DrzwaR0929x6zEm2E8+Te5T+0f7VonvPq0PA0w7GKivzS6u33 0lnm0y8Lbd64QgROSQiFVRSbqrZoxPCbVNb6G3zqGskeFDukIzzrDJFnHAYFNMF/kVKn 0jc7nxAaG+qa7eD2hbfHUrNcmgGWv9/yCZ7hrCVO1pIbJ/AanSv/G5kU6P18QFZjFYxq yV4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLpWTOR+mPH/CX4l9FDSOs96EXTdydn3NcFv0+a3rEDW449hXiqzKVx+2RLA11FsukjQSw8qL7jI22hYg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.159.37.70 with SMTP id 64mr2160701uaz.37.1460055359794; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.89.66 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzzYKy0L3h+_-cEZXR7W+NbGhMg7BchsaZd0uVuQSpig-g@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> <CANatvzzUQ+TEFZ5kML+Eagsb_O2pdmWosjMx_xspzrsCTy2hkA@mail.gmail.com> <F6EC743C-187F-4189-B78B-51079FBB5F02@greenbytes.de> <CANatvzzYKy0L3h+_-cEZXR7W+NbGhMg7BchsaZd0uVuQSpig-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 20:55:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAMqGzZZCrjLmZhR3XmsF+1C1NbwdgVQ8w-p1QBNejoFpOWDuA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c12399412cab9052fe9a198"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.50; envelope-from=alcidesv@zunzun.se; helo=mail-vk0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.818, 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: lisa.w3.org 1aoF6Q-0002mI-Uj 4470690494be14c3005856bff479ebaf
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/CAAMqGzZZCrjLmZhR3XmsF+1C1NbwdgVQ8w-p1QBNejoFpOWDuA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31385
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 everybody,

Our company got a little bit of money from the the Swedish government  to
do some research on the general idea of cache digests and on anything that
helps this digests proposal evolve forward. As you may suspect, the results
will be public (source code under BSD 3 and technical report under Creative
Commons, Attribution­ShareAlike). So, regarding the current status of this
proposal, what would you consider the most urgent issue that needs to be
addressed/researched-further/solved ?

In advance, kind thanks for your time.

Alcides Viamontes E. PhD
Zunzun AB.




On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2016-02-10 16:02 GMT+09:00 Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>:
> > Is PUSHing a HEAD request, unconditional, not what you are looking for?
>
> Thank you for the suggestion.  I hadn't thought about using HEAD, but
> it sounds like an elegant solution.
>
> Pushing HEAD requests with validators stored in the responses would be
> much easier and straightforward to define and / or implement than
> trying to determine how to push conditional requests.
>
> Do the web browsers recognize pushed HEAD requests?
>
> >> Am 10.02.2016 um 02:50 schrieb Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Kazuho Oku
>