Re: ID for Immutable

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Thu, 27 October 2016 00:23 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 4EFE0129880 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sendgrid.me
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 zmss6e-ZYYHJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:23:28 -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 542F8129633 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bzYPY-0005It-TY for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:19:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:19:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bzYPY-0005It-TY@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1bzYPT-0005Hf-Jm for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:19:07 +0000
Received: from o1.7n.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.7]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1bzYPN-00021y-1D for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:19:02 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=b/EtW+nxkcgfV9v62jNWcrvXgrw=; b=E74DP3g0xleRitiKbN jgBmpKC7a26NH+BSyJl4bwnS114ITNy0DRozlONxNKnOW4yJNA+zwtXsMENaWQBP UuXQKlsodmEPhcTgHkq9n7S3uvf6xLC0UmlgoxLkGpuxUjOf/Wlx4QwwXqd5BPm4 88xRbSXqVxgzaIOtzaehDJPrU=
Received: by filter0264p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0264p1las1-923-581147D9-23 2016-10-27 00:18:33.383244401 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com (mail-oi0-f47.google.com [209.85.218.47]) by ismtpd0002p1sjc2.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id iEfz7ccmQzOqmpNmbAHRtA for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:18:33.220 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id a195so21249067oib.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdEl+ypwnRhz8sA6RPz/LgPKGcjCYLaak0GVi0ckGrf09WhusHQToP+0ay8qunuM0KDesPxNEHuhXSEyQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.140.150 with SMTP id o144mr5287631iod.8.1477527512489; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.228.236 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <42BA6A75-AE2D-4C5E-A879-731D18EBB67B@weargoggles.co.uk>
References: <CAOdDvNqam930_0eA1p3yHW+xDdOm0AAMKvVKe6xwNwm1itpRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <42BA6A75-AE2D-4C5E-A879-731D18EBB67B@weargoggles.co.uk>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 20:18:31 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNq-o4=o25XmdGPNdcSX5teQa5Yn8090CGmi8jZVLtas_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNq-o4=o25XmdGPNdcSX5teQa5Yn8090CGmi8jZVLtas_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pete Wildsmith <pete@weargoggles.co.uk>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c06a532872950053fcdae16
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh6EEtotU9ZK5lasADPzdhdzmaH0jSNvZrH9qv mN40DrvMXpf06NvSaZcNPfeqBo70hi+jiazqjVtStInS5JJN6NHEYPi0clZ7B0qagnoGVWcxfvoDlh HOKTyY/Rz9JUkeACpYkgtij6nEShyIVcSDWn9u+Im/vfuz/fH2XYwEB/la5pjU+Y52XyV/Lq4maW0p U=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.7; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.7n.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.272, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.339, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1bzYPN-00021y-1D 6e88f665c9c1de322f5dfcd814510d5e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ID for Immutable
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNq-o4=o25XmdGPNdcSX5teQa5Yn8090CGmi8jZVLtas_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32680
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 Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Pete Wildsmith <pete@weargoggles.co.uk>
wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> the relevant section of RFC7234 suggests that conditional requests before
> the end of the freshness lifetime are made at the discretion of the cache.
>
> > When a response is "fresh" in the cache, it can be used to satisfy
> subsequent requests without contacting the origin server, thereby improving
> efficiency.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.2
>
> My understanding of your extension is that for responses with the
> extension, the implicit MAY in the quoted sentence would become a SHOULD or
> MUST.
>
>
technically no.. immutable does not place any requirements on the client -
it remains an implicit MAY though there is no point in revalidating a fresh
response served with immutable.


> This seems to conflict with user-agents’ reload behaviour. If all
> resources that are not expected to change during the lifetime of the
> resource begin using this extension, will it not become necessary for
> ‘reload’ to invoke a process which ignores the extension for the same
> reason that ‘max-age=0’ is now sent?
>

I think Ben's got this one - the idea is to disambiguate reloading for
corruption-fixing (e.g. no-cache) from reloading for updates.


>
> Pete
>
> > On 26 Oct 2016, at 22:02, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
> >
> > [as individual]
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-mcmanus-immutable-00.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Patrick McManus and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> >
> > Name:           draft-mcmanus-immutable
> > Revision:       00
> > Title:          HTTP Immutable Responses
> > Document date:  2016-10-26
> > Group:          Individual Submission
> > Pages:          4
> > URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcmanus-
> immutable-00.txt
> > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-mcmanus-immutable/
> > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcmanus-immutable-00
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    The immutable HTTP response Cache-Control extension allows servers to
> >    identify resources that will not be updated during their freshness
> >    lifetime.  This assures that a client never needs to revalidate a
> >    cached fresh resource to be certain it has not been modified.
> >
>
>
>