HTTP/1.1 #223: Allowing heuristic caching for new status codes

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 11 February 2013 06:31 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 2EAE921F88E4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:31:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.160, 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 0U1m4YEWi13r for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:31:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810CD21F88BD for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:31:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U4mtb-00042K-6r for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:29:43 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:29:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U4mtb-00042K-6r@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1U4mtR-00041b-Mh for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:29:33 +0000
Received: from fallback-out2.mxes.net ([216.86.168.191] helo=fallback-in2.mxes.net) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1U4mtQ-0005az-Oz for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:29:33 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by fallback-in1.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC3A2FDC21 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:28:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.202.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BF4922E200 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:27:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5EC66A14-A13C-4AA5-BB77-145D298EC1B3@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:27:40 +1100
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.191; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=fallback-in2.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.035, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1U4mtQ-0005az-Oz 6ec8fdcb4b1ff3c7d6f4f45f5c1b1278
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: HTTP/1.1 #223: Allowing heuristic caching for new status codes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5EC66A14-A13C-4AA5-BB77-145D298EC1B3@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16546
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>

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/223>

After some discussion with Roy, we've come to the conclusion that the edits I did when I re-wrote the caching part unnecessarily introduced a new aspect of status codes -- whether or not responses carrying it can have a heuristic applied to determine freshness.

We're currently working through the drafts to pull that back, so that any status code defined as "cacheable" can have a heuristic applied.

We'll review those edits as part of our next round of drafts; just wanted to give people a heads-up. In parallel, I'm going to open another issue regarding *what* status codes are cacheable by default; this came out of the discussion of #223.

Cheers,

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