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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 24 July 2011 18:17 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 6461A21F8892 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 tBXso6v+bjvH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B72B721F867F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ql3Ep-0005sz-3k for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:17:15 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Ql3Ei-0005eL-0I for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:17:08 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Ql3Ed-0006Bc-0v for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:17:07 +0000
Received: from dhcp-1790.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [130.129.23.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2A7622E247; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:16:41 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110724181508.GX22405@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:16:40 -0400
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EF6FD50F-7BED-4D74-AB5A-60949DC06EB0@mnot.net>
References: <891657B9-2F11-43D6-A9A0-4C6663DAC127@mnot.net> <20110724175303.GU22405@1wt.eu> <6F86A490-84EA-4CD3-925D-BD39A23E79FE@mnot.net> <20110724180605.GV22405@1wt.eu> <3FCE9E1A-6493-470D-8017-E68C8A8FC9A1@mnot.net> <20110724181508.GX22405@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Ql3Ed-0006Bc-0v 4f55a7cd31ef9bbf95005e508ab064fb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/EF6FD50F-7BED-4D74-AB5A-60949DC06EB0@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11057
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: <E1Ql3Ep-0005sz-3k@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:17:15 +0000

On 24/07/2011, at 2:15 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> If my server emits an Expires header with a date in 2013 because of reboot
> with a wrong date, some caches might cache the content for a long time. Even
> if I fix the date when I notice it, some caches will still have the issue. I'm
> not saying this is something critical, I'm saying that I think that's one of
> the concerns you quoted when saying that longer TTLs are generaly caused by
> clock errors.


True, but the date skew *should* be detected if the age is correctly calculated.

Cheers,

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