Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 19 August 2014 23:13 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 16A0F1A6FD2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.67 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=-0.668, 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 nMstb9sxABRi for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:13:13 -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 EA9641A6FC1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XJsXi-0002e8-GM for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:10:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:10:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XJsXi-0002e8-GM@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1XJsXQ-0001I2-Nn for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:10:00 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1XJsXP-0003XR-SM for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:10:00 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id f8so5843991wiw.5 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
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=sl5FMtLrNenRWRfz22CNQcruLbJsYb9UDRoW/02ccv8=; b=i9y+L8asgTwO8iX5Qw5nnnfJbhVpEXb9CWeQRbryjd0QjQYgQgqPRzKdu5wZeu2uO4 yxSWlg2Il3JRiL7Rd45W8j8O+5XLc5v9iOnypK6sZ/73DXXwUpPxqxDbj3Y19c/fdewo M50hZJElmUn3Btj4dGhjVrreuTFHmItOFPRS2KJSly6yPoH3hxEZCUdVSBX4bNg+JIX5 Tk3aHasN7jDt4ZnGCWDkQ4ZG+Mva07XtVNglAQA1uYinYif7IaQ8kA94nhfASLngxfSq Av+BwKbD8X8Ossk5liMzjFKOMXTiUSeBcq+Bn5NJOYHRFpL40wEWDgAnQFnOO/IBKk1T ffLQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.73.6 with SMTP id h6mr10046311wiv.65.1408489773549; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.6.229 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKC-DJiD6_3SZd-k7FXCcwuA4AK7kXVupqXuy2+XuQKWtqP2xA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnUDKqPttrp0T-fyrenkgEm=YzwbdmoaJ=Jti3ER1SEAMw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJgBKoq_M3xMu5115j+OTudSNMNGwOakXjKRP=odVMPn_A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXRw7Rc7MJddW4UqSo2=hQ2E2EysLyzcaVM6_xf7h0R9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJiG+pNAitg6z0wuL16NDnBp0tNwQhpvEWXs77x_c3f=2Q@mail.gmail.com> <53F34F02.2090807@gmx.de> <CABkgnnVQqYhDyLBvfaqD7oWGjY7WuvuSqWERwjoH=bQeh8k79g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJiD6_3SZd-k7FXCcwuA4AK7kXVupqXuy2+XuQKWtqP2xA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:09:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW+QM8brr2FkBnOHAhFi9kjdrVoZ+yThckbURq9V5jmnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.170; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.730, 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
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XJsXP-0003XR-SM 434f6cea7b949cb13c79787f89a4f080
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnW+QM8brr2FkBnOHAhFi9kjdrVoZ+yThckbURq9V5jmnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26662
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>

On 19 August 2014 15:09, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote:
> With a set of options
> it becomes much more clear when the client can start taking action
> without needing to worry about thrashing.

I think that I can concede that point.  It will make the ALTSVC frame
uglier, but that's fine.

> Additionally, how does a server remove/replace an ALTSVC record it set
> previously without waiting for a TTL expiration?

That's only a problem if you forget about one.