IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Push and Caching

William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 05:08 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 A9DA01A06E7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:08:42 -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 tqd0YGHckDmg for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:08:31 -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 C4F5E1A0653 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XM8wh-0001lL-1X for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:05:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:05:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XM8wh-0001lL-1X@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <wchow@mobolize.com>) id 1XM8wE-0000Nk-Iy for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:04:58 +0000
Received: from mail-by2on0083.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([207.46.100.83] helo=na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <wchow@mobolize.com>) id 1XM8wC-0001FD-GS for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:04:58 +0000
Received: from DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.176.22) by DM2PR05MB672.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.176.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:04:26 +0000
Received: from DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.176.22]) by DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.176.22]) with mapi id 15.00.1010.016; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:04:26 +0000
From: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: Push and Caching
Thread-Index: Ac+7v7yD0ZTj4Oj/Q2KCGy9THej6JgAEtB4AABO1Y4AAWKDXwAAA/BiwAAXBIYAAAme3gAAhH1uAAAA6DAAAlYD1AAANDLGAAACCPIAAB4OXAAADQUAA
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:04:25 +0000
Message-ID: <7d2fdc975fec4646b21e86620a834e72@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <dc3d860ecb4b4d408a5ed0519a036e61@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnWvKgyDcm-1jEKZUA2Qza9M46X+X_QybwuqRwvSUrTjNw@mail.gmail.com> <B6B89855-237F-44DA-B29C-2A3BB5CE0EED@mnot.net> <920b92b90a3c47ef8d450c903b83af40@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <d94a3acceb954583a61b0118381df417@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAOdDvNpa5WR4LJbsgQaBE3bTSAc+gXfYqCmV+zmUzE5b7+1a9A@mail.gmail.com> <CECA0C1A-E64C-443A-87AF-22BC66286F72@mnot.net> <CABkgnnXVJA3R4qhc__k4j+_LzeS7B24VxfCZwBSfywepEx=tKA@mail.gmail.com> <40d03e3bb1df480e808e64fa29048880@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnX-0X+JZfFYhm18b=bLidaq_pqN5s-K0NBS28m-s6+9Kg@mail.gmail.com> <233C8C21-BF80-4E07-9717-56630085E192@mnot.net> <CABkgnnW9Uq5R1KvuTXuT=xUdX_pVWikyAOMp=ixJe+c0NRs4Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NHV_966DSX4yX-=tfDPUkk-obCXFbJnPifQpFb1KFjYDg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NHV_966DSX4yX-=tfDPUkk-obCXFbJnPifQpFb1KFjYDg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [108.47.164.83]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 03152A99FF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009010)(199003)(377454003)(24454002)(189002)(85306004)(50986999)(19580395003)(86362001)(90102001)(87936001)(20776003)(16601075003)(99286002)(83072002)(64706001)(95666004)(2656002)(4396001)(19617315012)(19580405001)(15202345003)(74502001)(54356999)(76576001)(83322001)(85852003)(21056001)(76482001)(15975445006)(46102001)(19625215002)(77982001)(79102001)(105586002)(74662001)(19300405004)(66066001)(101416001)(107046002)(106356001)(15395725005)(108616004)(31966008)(81542001)(19609705001)(99396002)(33646002)(92566001)(74316001)(76176999)(81342001)(80022001)(16236675004)(7059011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB672; H:DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7d2fdc975fec4646b21e86620a834e72DM2PR05MB670namprd05pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: mobolize.com
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=207.46.100.83; envelope-from=wchow@mobolize.com; helo=na01-by2-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 1XM8wC-0001FD-GS 690cd8bddf8faa29d3ae0236d81b2717
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/7d2fdc975fec4646b21e86620a834e72@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26736
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>

Is “validated” the right term? It seems this could be confused with cache validation, which is only applicable to a cached response and is generally/intuitively viewed as a client-initiated action.

Also, which response is the point of reference for validity/freshness? The proposed sentence seems to refer to a pushed response being “validated” at the time that the pushed response itself was generated. I assume we’d actually want to treat the pushed responses to be fresh at the time the response for the associated/original request was generated.

--Will

From: Greg Wilkins [mailto:gregw@intalio.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:48 PM
To: Martin Thomson
Cc: Mark Nottingham; Mike Bishop; Patrick McManus; William Chow; HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: Push and Caching


On 26 August 2014 09:13, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
TAKE TWO:
Pushed responses are considered successfully validated on the origin
server (...) at the time that the response is generated.

I'm good with this one.     I like the instantaneous nature of it.

Any attempt to define the ongoing validity of a resource implies that something will be checking that on the server side and overlaps with the cache control headers.

cheers

--
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com<mailto:gregw@intalio.com>>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status