IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why should caches and intermediaries ignore If-Match?

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Fri, 17 February 2017 22:18 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 520D5129C2A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:18:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 NnUBEuwBnLEi for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:18:23 -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 600D3129C1F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:18:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ceqp1-00036P-A9 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:16:11 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:16:11 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ceqp1-00036P-A9@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1ceqov-00035P-JY for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:16:05 +0000
Received: from mail.measurement-factory.com ([104.237.131.42]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1ceqop-00084F-KT for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:16:00 +0000
Received: from [65.102.233.169] (unknown [65.102.233.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.measurement-factory.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21261E037; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:15:37 +0000 (UTC)
References: <CA+3+x5FgdfAQ4Nos9VTGe35RiH8Z+3zZiUGH_bKXHz+VO+UAbQ@mail.gmail.com> <aaedcb18-2a19-9b77-95d9-0559e21407c2@measurement-factory.com> <CA+3+x5E_HPycm4axSLtO0jGmjDBS3=kVfhaJzKR+7n7S_yMgkg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Message-ID: <42df8204-c302-784d-312c-4c272b5842ed@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:15:36 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+3+x5E_HPycm4axSLtO0jGmjDBS3=kVfhaJzKR+7n7S_yMgkg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.237.131.42; envelope-from=rousskov@measurement-factory.com; helo=mail.measurement-factory.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.666, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1ceqop-00084F-KT 8c80dc8b4268a4cf6ea9ee0923afd027
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why should caches and intermediaries ignore If-Match?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/42df8204-c302-784d-312c-4c272b5842ed@measurement-factory.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33580
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 02/17/2017 03:06 PM, Tom Bergan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>     On 02/15/2017 04:43 PM, Tom Bergan wrote:
>     > if the cache does not have an allowed ETag, then the
>     > request should be forwarded to the origin. Does that sound right?


>     It sounds reasonable to me but it would violate the original RFC 2616
>     text and go against the letter (but perhaps not the intent) of the new
>     HTTPbis rules.


> I don't think it would violate the original RFC 2616 text?


AFAICT, it would violate the following RFC 2616 Section 14.24 MUST:

>    If none of the entity tags match [...]
>    the server [...]
>    MUST return a 412 (Precondition Failed) response.

A [caching] proxy is a server.

Alex.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email