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

Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 07:30 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 F3C661B37CF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:30:12 -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 TuAMWKq7Uz9z for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:30:11 -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 6B0A01B37D4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aTPBO-0005LE-Bw for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:27:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:27:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aTPBO-0005LE-Bw@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 1aTPBJ-0005Jz-OX for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:27:21 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1aTPBG-0003Sy-Ma for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:27:20 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 128so14479207wmz.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:26:58 -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=MmoJT+FzNeElGJPlU2HF2VledwzGnTBZjbLsV+adZ3E=; b=0+LZXIc5JQQCsJt+60iLu9gbg78P956jXmynF+t7X1PqY4mn6cWrxfShiQugeRoIKc qY8x+vOxC9+jsCFa7iTtIPFeLJ5m2RVYPN/ljXxDp9pPg4HyYEo5vMm1zL7nKTb2082E 5AUcTR5Y76MhdEC76/w065sKgd8K6LUJwW8ak/fz2Bk+YdBzZPPGogQCC//f8OXztDj7 mfSPdyMJYcWXUN5Wj/fcbxC7Y2ZaWLVELcjwDubOYWgVBHayOTNvvFUA6SQsTgqUJuSU 5nEIcRYE+rE+klyna3Ac1GbGURKqGtUDLDxqVA1eS3hgxSXeXFV0eYLaMbogeoSB9Zzb tumg==
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=MmoJT+FzNeElGJPlU2HF2VledwzGnTBZjbLsV+adZ3E=; b=lm4GFgqCbexpKPqw71ef2+aNY/uN7PzlIpp4SJxTmDfrj7gzwXc9XEsp0oUifstzY/ C41aIG+yDvZjbb3SPSdGsjMZ1+jsLWYDhUFhb9kW3ImC/SdldplXr50Nz/cFae6+mZxc kXhrLF6di361bUvxr4TIMNLf3Pepcj+fNKgrqDZPGn9ARnCL8V+cgdcGrYQKystGHFFm khoFxMeh89q58q4++874yBeEqfbP1MiZzg99d9S/pBAcQTJgTWyOyUrlDEvn0ZCT/Dt4 eIBYzx5eqiIeSvIi9OGpWCiyyx3sbNt2YYdtpK6dMDFVYvvyJffnEROY5Lok9pYmDHol JzaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQr4AfOZ2JmAH+2r4770ODjYIRWIdkKamt8ytMloaEkpufmn1phtxtvBoik8F5zd8fxlTWu5q9MPHKOVQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.174.36 with SMTP id bp4mr37584880wjc.137.1455089211930; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.235.163 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:26:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F6EC743C-187F-4189-B78B-51079FBB5F02@greenbytes.de>
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>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:26:51 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzzYKy0L3h+_-cEZXR7W+NbGhMg7BchsaZd0uVuQSpig-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Cc: Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>, 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=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=kazuhooku@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm0-f53.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 1aTPBG-0003Sy-Ma a397e2d2840236f603a93131b3ff021c
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/CANatvzzYKy0L3h+_-cEZXR7W+NbGhMg7BchsaZd0uVuQSpig-g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31066
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>

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