Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers
James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Sat, 29 June 2013 05:27 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 BC37421F9E5F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:27:56 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2i6dfVkWVFaI for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5504B21F9E7C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UsngL-0005xk-Kb for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:26:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:26:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UsngL-0005xk-Kb@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Usng7-0005ws-M7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:26:31 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Usng6-0006Oq-LO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 05:26:31 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id k14so3043686oag.26 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=R64qYG6mW4Irb+PMSKl9R4rwZzB0dQkQ4w9hqVFgKqA=; b=G0nh0V4ehy3BmyINXOMUmHAhEW0qzyy6Uhxs3fQQM3j3bo4qoykSpcLNBd5wfKK7Mf M2beRcdeEUqpskB4ei6nEdcZE7CJgD9eUxWGRo6VVuTrI0wkFkqm1tYW8BHRYTmXPiJR XNr29w0kV/Hli00t6i610vrJGhorv8LcbY8I7i9OQDxMQ7OTRVBC1ww4a1Lpdbm7ryfq x/tQv4b2fl8VbSltQUgQAkz7lZUSWBmLFn94m623kXpeTriyN5pkopWAk5wb9nZ8Wfvf uGwCqVnicGr9PwBPWiXJzLe6nJdxBU7QrYBXhxaemOVq4AKz2q/nfmh6BPX78cOXQ5DA CrMw==
X-Received: by 10.182.87.73 with SMTP id v9mr7589395obz.90.1372483564652; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.55.8 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNdJcZ_x6RidaVfP+VPtA3CwAbALgAqhOhAjZLzaz4tQRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnVGh9dLkfDrO2fq5TsnxwEu0Dff=LqJEJR5Odq2ibfDMg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcoSSSKJq3YbZ2ypw-xb0uOgFQcjcQP9tJdkgEjPfJVMA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdJcZ_x6RidaVfP+VPtA3CwAbALgAqhOhAjZLzaz4tQRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:25:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbf_pGKU-yB-f=6fB5WoVvs087eOf6Beo4DDHGJWYX5XTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.53; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.704, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Usng6-0006Oq-LO de9e72e43dbda2d00b2a944b42361b84
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7Rbf_pGKU-yB-f=6fB5WoVvs087eOf6Beo4DDHGJWYX5XTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18407
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>
Have an example handy? Here's an example that shows that response headers in the PUSH_PROMISE would not be necessary... Let's say I send a PUSH_PROMISE with the following bits of info... PUSH_PROMISE :path = /images/f.jpg :method = GET :host = example.org :scheme = http accept = image/jpeg if-match: "my-etag1" cache-control: max-age=1000 These headers are giving me everything I would need to determine if there is a matching resource in my local cache. I have the method, I have the etag, I have the cache-control parameters, accept... There's no need for response headers at this point. Later, once I start accepting the frames for the pushed content, I would get something like... HEADERS :status = 200 content-type: image/jpeg content-length: 123 etag: "my-etag1" vary: accept cache-control: public On the off chance that the PUSH_PROMISE doesn't give me what I need, the follow on HEADERS frame will give me the rest. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > Depending on how the request might have been been constructed, response > headers may be necessary to identify the resource in the cache, as compared > to the resource specified in the HTML (I'm thinking about vary: stuff). > > -=R > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Let's take a step back and consider what a pushed stream is... >> >> A pushed stream is essentially an "Implied GET". This means that a >> server is going to assume that the client was going to send a GET for >> the pushed resource. This also means that the server has to make some >> assumptions about the make up of that implied GET. >> >> Now, consider how HTTP caching works. When a cache receives a request >> for a resource, how does it determine whether or not it has a >> representation of the resource already available? Does it look at the >> request headers or the response headers? Obviously, it looks at the >> request headers. It uses the response headers when populating the >> cache. >> >> So, if we look at the pushed resource sent by the server, what we need >> is for A) the server to first let us know about the implied GET >> request.. which means pushing down a set of request headers then B) >> the server to send the actual resource, which means pushing down the >> response headers. >> >> Already in our design for pushed resources, we have the server sending >> a PUSH_PROMISE frame that contains a header block, followed by a >> HEADERS frame that also contains a headers block. It stands to reason >> that the PUSH_PROMISE frame would contain the set of request headers >> that the server is assuming for the implied GET. These are delivered >> to the client, which uses those to determine whether or not a cached >> representation of the resource is already available (just as any cache >> would do using the request headers). The server would then send it's >> response headers in a HEADERS frame, just as it would any response to >> any other kind of GET. >> >> Two examples to show how this naturally fits... First, let's look at a >> normal GET request sent by the client to the server... >> >> Client Server >> ------ ------ >> | | >> | ---------------------> | >> | HEADERS | >> | GET | >> | /images/f.jpg | >> | If-Match: etag1 | >> | Accept: image/jpeg | >> | | >> | <--------------------- | >> | HEADERS | >> | 200 | >> | Content-Type: | >> | image/jpeg | >> | Content-Length: | >> | 123 | >> | | >> | <--------------------- | >> | DATA....DATA.... | >> | | >> >> Now consider the same resource being pushed by the server using >> PUSH_PROMISE... >> >> Client Server >> ------ ------ >> | | >> | <--------------------- | >> | PUSH_PROMISE | >> | GET | >> | /images/f.jpg | >> | If-Match: etag1 | >> | Accept: image/jpeg | >> | | >> | <--------------------- | >> | HEADERS | >> | 200 | >> | Content-Type: | >> | image/jpeg | >> | Content-Length: | >> | 123 | >> | | >> | <--------------------- | >> | DATA....DATA.... | >> | | >> >> >> Note that the only difference here is the direction and type of the >> first frame. Everything else is identical. The PUSH_PROMISE contains >> everything the client needs to determine whether or not it already has >> the resource in it's local cache (request URI, etag, content-type...). >> >> There's no need to get any more complicated than this. We already >> require two distinct header blocks for every request. We already send >> two distinct header blocks for each pushed stream. We already indicate >> that a pushed stream is an implied GET. To make it work, we simply >> state that the PUSH_PROMISE contains the Request headers that the >> server has assumed for the implied GET request, while the HEADERS >> frame sent later contains the Response headers. If the request headers >> in the PUSH_PROMISE end up not being adequate enough to properly >> determine if the resource is already cached, then we treat it as just >> another cache miss. >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Martin Thomson >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/153 >> > >> > The current text describes PUSH_PROMISE as having a few request >> > headers, plus some response headers, but it's quite vague. >> > >> > I think that if this is going to be properly workable across a wide >> > range of uses with lots of different headers, PUSH_PROMISE needs to >> > include two sets of headers: the ones that it overrides from the >> > associated request (:path being foremost of those) and the ones that >> > it provides as a "preview" of the response (e.g., ETag might allow >> > caches to determine if they were interested in the rest of the >> > response). >> > >> >
- [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers David Morris
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Amos Jeffries
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Yoav Nir
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Jeff Pinner
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Michael Sweet
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers David Morris
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Amos Jeffries
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- RE: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Mike Bishop
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Sam Pullara
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Martin Thomson
- RE: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Mike Bishop
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers James M Snell
- RE: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Mike Bishop
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Amos Jeffries
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers Roberto Peon
- Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers William Chan (ιζΊζ)