IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Push and Caching

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 26 August 2014 06:52 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 72EB71A04B9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 jlOrkIl22zl2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:52:39 -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 D2C071A0266 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XMAZF-0001ck-OJ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:49:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:49:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XMAZF-0001ck-OJ@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 1XMAYz-0001bW-6W for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:49:05 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XMAYy-0003ec-B2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:49:05 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.123.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EE9322E1F3; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:48:35 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACweHNAxpaZRsK-Uu5biSvzt3kLhY4Bcw4pQgXSVcKYmKK-E_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:48:32 +1000
Cc: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D92F296B-3E9A-42B3-978C-AC319C072C60@mnot.net>
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>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.075, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XMAYy-0003ec-B2 c8379ba0a7935645c3504b62ac79e3e9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push and Caching
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D92F296B-3E9A-42B3-978C-AC319C072C60@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26740
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>

"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.



On 26 Aug 2014, at 3:49 pm, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:

> On 26 August 2014 15:18, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com> wrote:
> > Can "fresh" work? I agree that it perhaps implies caching as well,
> > but at least it avoids the notion that the server actually performed
> > any validation (which it could not, without the client providing
> > validators for the pushed responses).
> 
> "Pushed responses are considered fresh on the origin server (...) at
> the time that the response is generated." Makes sense to me, although it
> starts to sound a bit no-brainish.
> 
> ​And regarding your other question:​
> 
> > Also, which response is the point of reference for
> > validity/freshness? The proposed sentence seems to refer to a pushed
> > response being "validated" at the time that the pushed response
> > itself was generated. I assume we'd actually want to treat the pushed
> > responses to be fresh at the time the response for the
> > associated/original request was generated.
> 
> It can only be fresh at the time the pushed response itself is
> generated, surely. The original response triggered the *need* for the
> pushed resource, but there's nothing stopping the value of that pushed
> resource changing between the need being determined and bytes being
> transmitted.
> 
> -- 
>   Matthew Kerwin
>   http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

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

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