Re: Issue: ORIGIN and Server Push [#355]

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 30 May 2017 07:07 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 7E0C7129353 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2017 00:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=HWyu49zO; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=RtPb6YCB
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 QdhONJeXeQMv for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 May 2017 00:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
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 51BBA1243F3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 May 2017 00:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1dFbDA-000391-NR for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 07:05:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 07:05:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1dFbDA-000391-NR@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 <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1dFbD6-00038A-GS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 07:04:56 +0000
Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.221]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1dFbCz-0007u7-Py for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 May 2017 07:04:51 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E694515C7 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:04:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 30 May 2017 03:04:27 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=r1is+vDb1gDPteQmrW yzRHTQSlXrOE6efSXN50iGaVE=; b=HWyu49zO+Ehmyqah5hE4F5/mmTi9CJU9y7 k2jREQiZqcu+DylmGYAcppG1JGWT9sa/B+HRwHINvLPDifjkrkGgAJ6IMDJH0Ggf 9T/AWX0YY7nCYI24GOEHWeynURVi3FPuIo7gwQXZGEH7wYovaK3/YCGpqgw9y2Wd qy7gB7Pm+fAT+ghvIUqMd6VknLKUJR5+oqkcMvsypeNItzUyaLnwgfg79CoUjxu8 HVPrlbQauHem1Kju6TI2P/ftKJc55n5KXK4Pm1mRexryLKlT7Yj34tj11wcMYFoE xeuNWH783Gz8obaupHdvRfnaBrLFLSnzmIHsQ+ZKj6Io4ClCjbeQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=r1is+vDb1gDPteQmrWyzRHTQSlXrOE6efSXN50iGaVE=; b=RtPb6YCB lr/g9tkc3ybX2wPJypsli1EgXKnje1aGw4t/xKEuVO2w6t8SwtEhSyhoyATRHuV5 ilg90oM6U5GOXCYuG4vwouZoAktaHNzWp2yUHTGSqlZxXBVjh9x3R+2P4x+xRbxH G2npzIsUV6fE3q4LqsJdp7U58cMr9jWwF8BWCaWFtI+Ze3yK4xq5F6gDqrn9HM2p XyTaQAfOozJJ0G88vskZ+xni0bOXhWJOgJtDsr1NFuq/DZUu5KoUH4Wodtjxpn0b MLNr4eI0jTtPtjFT0ym8/EYymho7657tC25eHDCjS2RZi04umj5FgsgD7Bn6K1MW GRg18vDgZYLCxQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ehktWbGqaSt2JCKcCMZ0BL_pK7okUHbDaq7ImVhxUB1CCi2xKw_kwA>
X-Sasl-enc: 2XduQQhVk47b2/paB1q8le8SpXoM8RbS4KVVg3+xX0OM 1496127866
Received: from [192.168.1.18] (cpe-124-188-19-231.hdbq1.win.bigpond.net.au [124.188.19.231]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4CA9C24407 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 May 2017 03:04:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 17:04:23 +1000
References: <F8D3C0FD-886A-4558-8F5C-5B822F27269F@mnot.net>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <F8D3C0FD-886A-4558-8F5C-5B822F27269F@mnot.net>
Message-Id: <71105138-1BA0-48EA-95B6-4C8E647AC74F@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.221; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=new1-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1dFbCz-0007u7-Py 12f829cb4914462492604edd2cd26be0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue: ORIGIN and Server Push [#355]
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/71105138-1BA0-48EA-95B6-4C8E647AC74F@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33962
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 30 May 2017, at 4:54 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> I created a new issue:
>  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/355
> 
> #349 made me realise that, from the server's perspective, they don't have hard information about whether the client supports ORIGIN at the time they send the ORIGIN frame.
> 
> While they might gather this based upon the requests that the client subsequently sends, this isn't information you'd want to rely upon.
> 
> This is especially relevant to Server Push. Right now, ORIGIN is defined to affect what the client is able to push, but (as above), the server doesn't have a firm idea about the origins that are actually valid to use on the connection at any given time.
> 
> A number of potential solutions:
> 
> 1. The server just speculatively pushes and figures it out based upon the responses (i.e. no change)

Oh, and this could involve defining a specific stream error code for this situation. Right now, 7540 just specifies using PROTOCOL_ERROR.


> 2. We create an explicit signal from the client to the server (e.g., "I will process ORIGIN", probably a SETTING, or "I have processed ORIGIN", probably a frame)
> 
> 3. ORIGIN doesn't constrain Server Push
> 
> Note that 1 is not optimal (wasted bytes), and 3 might collide badly with future uses of ORIGIN.
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/