IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Push and Caching

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 23:23 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 BF1041A00FF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 esrC0Q8wViAT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:23:27 -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 18AFC1A0033 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XMQ3E-0002m4-57 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:21:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:21:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XMQ3E-0002m4-57@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gregw@intalio.com>) id 1XMQ2v-0002lC-HC for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:21:01 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gregw@intalio.com>) id 1XMQ2u-0004Hm-8C for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:21:01 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id w62so15402734wes.36 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Q+7s7wWY1XEOn15HCmSrmOPCwktV42ZlWiluClFuR2Q=; b=We+NCjuCKad44U7OHqbq3WHgdxKTqFg7YMV9hpNgI33v+OR+pHsLpVhlCvzAdmSgQW LB0oRy10mOkXD2oR7Mfh1CPGqofkckPFWBPOQXaR6nSv7+dgHoMi7oQ0t4ksV3kWSIEd vPjkD3Xbvwp1cRLj6nSkzOC0+zwXLQf7OgFyaxESv6Kjg3tiWFauoCPcNe7qpIae5Ctl lTpi3//frnZi5tX/4q9vWsoR+m0jFhnJletGhIB+KM36r3M5eRX8mqaZK9CmZIfz2Rxs 9IkJnKkX1ktOlIcV+xkFNjp4r0Lm2EIujY8OnwfhdIHxHrKH7VkX12jNO9u3NtiZs7pr r93g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkz2KB2RLLYtCCYO7qvkDz9uLZMH69Y5JPk+zQ/jtEhrFMVh6xtPz8oXwkyWsFOg3rl6gJP
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.82.106 with SMTP id h10mr31041768wjy.37.1409095233835; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.169.98 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ee6c28ad51ab4022a6346ffb836bf770@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.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> <D92F296B-3E9A-42B3-978C-AC319C072C60@mnot.net> <9C64D35C-49BF-47F7-8D72-EFA2DA546FEA@gbiv.com> <22238EC5-50F4-4611-9FED-39E3D7B67B10@gbiv.com> <CABkgnnWssBqVw+aSb_8y80JBRWkQ8H+MPvmYZ7MyzOkYUQwWTQ@mail.gmail.com> <DE38D1FB-C9E1-441F-BDCE-9258714E0D96@gbiv.com> <02fc4b73d8004853b4286d02acbcc942@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnWXiivor8cTrHiAsL8uyJ-42FsiF44_103c7M+w2e797A@mail.gmail.com> <ee6c28ad51ab4022a6346ffb836bf770@DM2PR05MB670.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:20:33 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NFC265v4fBsbkhWoEPKbj5c=zfw4cC1omh-cw-Dhm9ZFw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
To: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bb04acede2e580501908cce"
Received-SPF: permerror client-ip=74.125.82.177; envelope-from=gregw@intalio.com; helo=mail-we0-f177.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.100, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XMQ2u-0004Hm-8C 05c938f8b332155f18b4cb9e80c69a76
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAH_y2NFC265v4fBsbkhWoEPKbj5c=zfw4cC1omh-cw-Dhm9ZFw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26753
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 27 August 2014 09:07, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com> wrote:

> Specifically, it seems that a pushed no-cache response should only be
> valid when *used* in combination with the response it was pushed with.


I think there is merit in language that associates the validity with the
response on which it was pushed.

This is a bit tangled.... but best I can do:

A recipient cache handling of a pushed response SHOULD be indistinguishable
from the
handling of a response received to a referred request made why processing
the original
response on which the pushed promise was received.



-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

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