Re: Working Group Last Call: HTTP Client Hints

Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> Mon, 02 March 2020 09:21 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 B65523A1098 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 01:21:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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=yoav-ws.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 ROTZFzO1BE1j for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 01:21:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (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 DE69B3A1095 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 01:21:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1j8hCr-00040Q-4L for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 09:17:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 09:17:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1j8hCr-00040Q-4L@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1j8hCg-0003z0-3K for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 09:17:34 +0000
Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1j8hCd-0004xs-Kg for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 09:17:33 +0000
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id q23so10892744ljm.4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 01:17:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yoav-ws.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IaOiAaCi6y3UsVPmMlYsPsLYMVtdxuhmRaxvMoAST9E=; b=HNf5yi47QAuJy1C65AkwZc5nmVE86E5GOgGbuAs8qWMcBYfjN2bHgarjylePjk8+K+ JvSSts4+60YtZSO1J0oBqIhCfq25yzaAzthCi9ZRtMhu8WSCzzw5Dh08iL90j5zoO2El 4WGDUztA0GGkqr8Enwyd4Kr5ekjFrpsiRWMSvIjvcy+YRcXHm3IveQhKoBwf1ibRZh1p GdIRUft56AflcR4CzwntdHRA8YtcGu72VSqNvDeZExFPUA1mYCvpzw4i0+QwQS1f3Zyg Kdq2yHqcscC3qK8ZB+zSO9FQR5K1Fs5HOCcM6g8GBCx+S9sLBZ60WQF2aL7jXjE6RHfG 3jAQ==
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=IaOiAaCi6y3UsVPmMlYsPsLYMVtdxuhmRaxvMoAST9E=; b=ne6j1zKncbMnimwxM+s2JC+2bcjPoQS3ZQxldE36Fyuye+l1HgHrEMJqO91+oaeQRW quqj9xgJFOS481Dc8xoaHiL+H/mhBqDUm4NdwSuEJzEn3kKNdSgsPlgkrdWg9uuKb7Et JBlLlg95HJYoVAYwwc7v6d4cUfn/j9XUYiL2lw6mwUr9/Mm0mrKV94eIDkZDSuQblhCO YN77IOIbjdB4mop/map7V9G71wmMbtXceCI7DpspOrbnfIOqQXAUgvjiPeBdLigoEald ZkRL9JR0voxiaaGS6xRK2+sJRjCswyWzPad0ww2nSaZYhAp6xAd9NRBzlQxZNvs6I+SK PhYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3WVazNGRHi9WtCCz9WRxjbVl9K4N1uO4lmtjw4TQQTt6cKvj/0 B28UnxuAtuUL4AU5+3yrwXgkoGTimB3Oez0QJv77eQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vusHeCz4amKlK1NCbkWO16uLC3QM1tGJAT2SCT1uhACALfnnrj9qTxNLZ/3DSHkpaBulepfuEeD/2WWL0nxWZk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1032:: with SMTP id w18mr10742193ljm.61.1583140639692; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 01:17:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5051090A-C16C-474E-A1F8-437A562B1279@mnot.net> <543e0e07-fb81-8b9c-f236-f8c6d71c1e4a@gmx.de> <CACj=BEgUzcHDPEwc8WpjTwSotqhDw6ubQTU_fcaTddTZPacncg@mail.gmail.com> <CACj=BEgdSM7_4en2vPeHHrKmbkTiAx62FA1vQjxjEuWz8Q4nuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANh-dXkj4r9TmGCs-PEn8Y2meStKZY2zRdKjRpSTc9L0HPipdg@mail.gmail.com> <C7EF3093-46B4-40DC-9AF9-AD869634B0C2@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <C7EF3093-46B4-40DC-9AF9-AD869634B0C2@mnot.net>
From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 10:17:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CACj=BEgSgxNP3DJfear73p6n+9VFmeGQV+LKoi4M1CggUoN-uA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000756fb3059fdba79c"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::231; envelope-from=yoav@yoav.ws; helo=mail-lj1-x231.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1j8hCd-0004xs-Kg 5a65d5211d440e95af3d35acee4088d9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call: HTTP Client Hints
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACj=BEgSgxNP3DJfear73p6n+9VFmeGQV+LKoi4M1CggUoN-uA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37400
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>

Thanks! PR at https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1082

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:57 AM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Yes, I think that makes sense.
>
> The reason for adding this was to make sure that CH authors understood
> that they'd see better cache efficiency if they did this, but it's not
> ready yet.
>
>
>
> > On 29 Feb 2020, at 7:23 am, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:28 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:
> > The PR is now merged and addresses most of the comments.
> >
> >
> > Appendix A.  Interaction with Variants Response Header Field
> >
> >     Client Hints may be combined with Variants response header field
> >     [VARIANTS] to enable fine-grained control of the cache key for
> >     improved cache efficiency.  Features that define Client Hints will
> >     need to specify the related variants algorithms as described in
> >     Section 6 of [VARIANTS].
> >
> > Unless we're planning to finish VARIANTS really soon, I'd drop this
> > appendix.
> >
> > mnot - thoughts?
> >
> > Friendly ping! :)
> >
> > I might have been involved in asking for this section... Basically, if
> this document is ready to go to RFC before Variants, we don't want to
> artificially block it behind Variants, which this Appendix would do. To fix
> that, this text ought to move to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-variants-06#appendix-A.
> >
> > If Variants had gone first, this text would be in the right place, for
> the same reason.
> >
> > That is, I agree with Julian.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> > Jeffrey
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>