Re: Push and Caching
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 22 August 2014 18:00 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 BF00B1A06A3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:00:39 -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 2qfMf78p50cM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:00:34 -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 E348A1A06CB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XKt6R-0006AJ-7Y for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 17:58:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 17:58:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XKt6R-0006AJ-7Y@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1XKt68-00069W-NG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 17:58:00 +0000
Received: from mail-la0-f50.google.com ([209.85.215.50]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1XKt67-0000uY-Tl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 17:58:00 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id pi18so10350256lab.37 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+Ms8UKz67ZUFmhSt4EufNRgMmzWuHsCdy1tKIuLE4tY=; b=k6Xtwru3+AV8eygzCHdaYIkWUnNGwjmpEm2pxIuDQvDNbVg31pIElflXDf8GgW/BzH N0aDQugKTyrKhTtRwZQ6/jIU8z2Ipm1cKGIXd7rxaFvGi3AQEWJbAAaPz7AU55LmCwac PuvJQH3Ulx2rAUw03Uh3IVzDWna67cz5okiySBhO/TQJ8ORrWZZtIt8ImQSLM7P8QsIa CNIipN40v1+15Wi+rZ1IA30L6VjvAeMi39dLXnECRNHOtK575qcrw0gRQqp1U+iiGSrM gq4//T+/coUwrHC2BcYS/pIZ7aliGuO6DQ93/sBeHRgxexmtlNqDpKQZkqBoV9HNOtJI SVqQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.87.82 with SMTP id v18mr5961295laz.17.1408730253142; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.166.75 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <40d03e3bb1df480e808e64fa29048880@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.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>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:57:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW5NMo8ZuxzHVb+z=9z6NXDZf40iQY75qDcBNfzOWAdeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.50; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.729, 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: maggie.w3.org 1XKt67-0000uY-Tl 6dce78c248c0919eb0a34eb63dcf6f4c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnW5NMo8ZuxzHVb+z=9z6NXDZf40iQY75qDcBNfzOWAdeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26709
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 22 August 2014 10:30, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: > "While the stream identified by the promised stream ID is still open" - meaning that as long as the client has asked for it before the server has finished sending it? That's a fairly small amount of time, particularly if the resource is very small, but sounds like a good starting point. I'm sure that clients can fail to notice the END_STREAM flag for as long as they need to in order to ensure that the various races resolve in the right way... Trying to determine how long the window is after END_STREAM arrives in which clients can consider the response validated is nasty. I don't know how to finesse this other than turning a blind eye to small violations, the likes of which you (and Firefox too) are committing in this regard.
- Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- RE: Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Patrick McManus
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- RE: Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- RE: Push and Caching Mike Bishop
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Push and Caching Mark Nottingham
- Re: Push and Caching Chris Drechsler
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Push and Caching Michael Sweet
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Roy T. Fielding
- RE: Push and Caching William Chow
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins
- Re: Push and Caching Martin Thomson
- Re: Push and Caching Greg Wilkins