IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Push and Caching

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 17:02 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45401A0066 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 XYusxtFIBNIr for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923F71A005B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XMK6Q-0004i6-Bh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:00:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:00:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XMK6Q-0004i6-Bh@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1XMK6A-0000FE-Dp for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:59:58 +0000
Received: from sub4.mail.dreamhost.com ([69.163.253.135] helo=homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1XMK69-00028j-C2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:59:58 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB072F406D; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=b+YBFb6vp8u0o5poJVku/PhbLKk=; b=5XO+uFUnQWHmtS4G/yPTydFYtD0L 7Er8bcjqESmmmP99fHO4NpSBAUjk1qPYOhotQMDgRMXr2fygD+Ec/cixDtZg9phL bsMWCPkfiZyv4bQjvD8A8rZhndgCgM3U8CgJvyIHbQyvSkNtnS0ylDf4BEP91jxa 5k8f+RLqX5EotLg=
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ip68-228-83-124.oc.oc.cox.net [68.228.83.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D0812F4057; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <9C64D35C-49BF-47F7-8D72-EFA2DA546FEA@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:59:35 -0700
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <22238EC5-50F4-4611-9FED-39E3D7B67B10@gbiv.com>
References: <dc3d860ecb4b4d408a5ed0519a036e61@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnWvKgyDcm-1jEKZUA2Qza9M46X+X_QybwuqRwvSUrTjNw@mail.gmail.com> <B6B89855-237F-44DA-B29C-2A3BB5CE0EED@mnot.net> <920b92b90a3c47ef8d450c903b83af40@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <d94a3acceb954583a61b0118381df417@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAOdDvNpa5WR4LJbsgQaBE3bTSAc+gXfYqCmV+zmUzE5b7+1a9A@mail.gmail.com> <CECA0C1A-E64C-443A-87AF-22BC66286F72@mnot.net> <CABkgnnXVJA3R4qhc__k4j+_LzeS7B24VxfCZwBSfywepEx=tKA@mail.gmail.com> <40d03e3bb1df480e808e64fa29048880@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnX-0X+JZfFYhm18b=bLidaq_pqN5s-K0NBS28m-s6+9Kg@mail.gmail.com> <233C8C21-BF80-4E07-9717-56630085E192@mnot.net> <CABkgnnW9Uq5R1KvuTXuT=xUdX_pVWikyAOMp=ixJe+c0NRs4Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NHV_966DSX4yX-=tfDPUkk-obCXFbJnPifQpFb1KFjYDg@mail.gmail.com> <7d2fdc975fec4646b21e86620a834e72@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2C38B85E-7290-4AE3-A886-12A329DE449C@mnot.net> <7 dbd0d9cfc6a4d25b96beb20210f98fa@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CACweHNAxpaZRsK-Uu5biSvzt3kLhY4Bcw4pQgXSVcKYmKK-E_w@mail.gmail.com> <D92F296B-3E9A-42B3-978C-AC319C072C60@mnot.net> <9C64D35C-49BF-47F7-8D72-EFA2DA546FEA@gbiv.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=69.163.253.135; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.388, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XMK69-00028j-C2 75d621e58e56806c0d04dfe05c83bb21
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/22238EC5-50F4-4611-9FED-39E3D7B67B10@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26743
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 Aug 26, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Aug 25, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> "fresh on the origin server" isn't relevant; what's relevant is whether they're fresh in the cache, and that can be determined by examining the response.
>> 
>> The issue at hand is whether the pushed response needs to be revalidated, as per the definition of no-cache.
> 
> "A recipient cache SHOULD consider a pushed response to be valid for the
> duration of the connection (or until it is replaced during that connection)
> even if the pushed response contains a "no-cache" cache directive."

Er, probably easier to be generic to all directives that control freshness:

"A recipient cache SHOULD consider a pushed response to be valid for the
duration of the connection (or until it is replaced during that connection)
even if the pushed response contains cache directives that would normally
indicate that the response is immediately stale."

....Roy

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status