Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sun, 24 July 2011 17:54 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B763921F85CE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.271
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.328, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3xZx4oTkSklu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3378D21F8567 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ql2s8-0001m1-T3 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:53:48 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Ql2s1-0001l6-Qi for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:53:42 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by aji.keio.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Ql2rx-00050P-32 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:53:40 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p6OHr3bb026908; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:53:03 +0200
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:53:03 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110724175303.GU22405@1wt.eu>
References: <891657B9-2F11-43D6-A9A0-4C6663DAC127@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <891657B9-2F11-43D6-A9A0-4C6663DAC127@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.193, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1Ql2rx-00050P-32 47724b78c46a06b947a8af98f38f0e72
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20110724175303.GU22405@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11048
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ql2s8-0001m1-T3@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:53:48 +0000

Hi Mark,

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 01:46:27PM -0400, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/290>
> 
> In p6 3.3,
> 
> A server SHOULD NOT send Expires dates more than one year in the future.
> 
> I did some asking around, and it seems like the idea behind this was that an Expires so far in the future was felt to be more often the sign of bad clocks or administrator error than an intention for such a long TTL (considering that pretty much any eviction algorithm would get rid of it far beforehand).
> 
> So, I propose we remove the requirement and replace it with something like:
> 
> """
> Historically, HTTP required the Expires field-value to be no more than a year in the future. While longer freshness lifetimes are no longer prohibited, extremely large values have been demonstrated to cause problems (e.g., clock overflows), and senders ought not produce them.
> """

But if more than one year is often the cause of a config error or bad clock,
shouldn't we suggest that destinations ignore the large value instead ?

Regards,
Willy