IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header

Matthew Stock <stock@csgeeks.org> Tue, 15 January 2019 08:18 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 CA577130DFA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:18:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.041
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=csgeeks-org.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 4uR8Ec1Wm7Ix for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24C58130DD8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1gjJsV-0004fG-Uc for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:15:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:15:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1gjJsV-0004fG-Uc@frink.w3.org>
Received: from uranus.w3.org ([128.30.52.58]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <stock@csgeeks.org>) id 1gjJsU-0004eF-2l for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:15:18 +0000
Received: from www-data by uranus.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <stock@csgeeks.org>) id 1gjJsT-0004ZH-US for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:15:17 +0000
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <stock@csgeeks.org>) id 1gj9JZ-0008V4-5Y for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:58:33 +0000
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <stock@csgeeks.org>) id 1gj9JX-0007Va-PH for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:58:33 +0000
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x85-v6so429276ljb.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:58:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=csgeeks-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PLNCD6Eckml9Tjhcrc9uQS2v9sO7leXaQzRQJuVAtZg=; b=Ucx4NFyD+iHxg2sq4pK5GQJ1XTOOuqeuqmkiysF/2OeDWLQRbWbnHjz1dDQsHXa9dB 2PGJEG/qzex8sK68D84unJ6esWR/SGlpsRyKnyArHv3mFsyMPQfagxKRMSrOD0CQ0uIq 1XIfoZ0vuSqKlO9QPt+hjiAlkMArO0V/uRl6hSu6MIxlKiSFJEllbHxjXz3vz7xpLak9 x9Sn9KTJtbGSD2WBODFCr/49kivc2KaqOzCeAwNOqsVUSuzEBHWJ0080sdzjX1I3Gzx5 oq8qnRG5SDfiC2+5Ih+Ri/jFepPn+17sJ4JRLC4MnLqVkTqBlaBw4pTUIW08jJyW3ZXD L55g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PLNCD6Eckml9Tjhcrc9uQS2v9sO7leXaQzRQJuVAtZg=; b=jUqJFNG6+BuOfGaD2A+XL1wzFqKTMMqm9v8KQ3pWkn1u1CVSpNNrMGgbPGkSeLm4aQ l33Tv8J7dNUVyCrSvaLgJdjPh1qZ92wMlmHoXwN6rJmRbAhcmtAsf8Wm20dFH1ndH9FG OAy44Ws1oPaMqK/6i/sn0KFURQsEDuSbati66tZ/YLd5czchlqc5xuv4eoIqA/2+Sv4+ KtuGuUQ0hlcRiNhnc5wu5nsC7V2MsJA5iDPKdj+DdNfIVK9rTJ/gcB7BPlN4vEa9F4Iu fsLkMU5+FlbCK8HxS5ip5TogmesWYMz5DDmJv9Nd3+0N3eWdCRN4T1yvSJ2U28XvJJky B/hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukerEVN6Y7QAyo+dnjCllL7j/RzNuXzewnoV0crllMoE56oVTPtn Kl/ppIxfehGgiNlpStHm93siQK2LzQMpTdr3Ar5NYA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6OL1IjbuZDPNXWGJBwhrhGXyVpsr+KnztqxajZQkdY95pJ+HTVyxr6lnMw9qTyh/HND8lDUVDshdaeA7tnBp8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:4218:: with SMTP id p24-v6mr291452lja.58.1547499488936; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:58:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <EF86EE31-622A-4520-B99D-4F2ADA2DB689@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF86EE31-622A-4520-B99D-4F2ADA2DB689@apple.com>
From: Matthew Stock <stock@csgeeks.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:57:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJEih48xFuA61BP2rQ0hAt9WtrxvukR7bQVshRNA2eP=pPwsuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054207b057f714d0b"
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1gj9JX-0007Va-PH 5801e023481d3441c6a2aba899ff2a5d
X-caa-id: a7224e203d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAJEih48xFuA61BP2rQ0hAt9WtrxvukR7bQVshRNA2eP=pPwsuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36271
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

With regards to the cache status, has there been any discussion around
range requests?  In particular, when the cache node has some of the
requested range but has to go upstream for the rest, how is it
represented?  My suggestion is to call it a HIT, and add a new parameter
"partial".

Aside from that, I'm in support of adoption.

Matt

On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:

> Hello HTTPBis,
>
> In Bangkok, we had a presentation from Mark on a draft to define a
> standard Cache HTTP Response Header, that can be used to replace
> non-standard uses of the "X-Cache" header. The document can be found here:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-cache-header-00.
>
> The response in the room was favorable to having the group work on this
> header, but we didn't have time (and hadn't had sufficient discussion) to
> do a formal call for adoption.
>
> This email starts a request for feedback, and a call for adoption. Please
> reply to this email with your thoughts, and state whether or not you
> believe the group should adopt this document. Feedback is requested by *Friday,
> January 25th*.
>
> Best,
> Tommy
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email