IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-08.txt

Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com> Sun, 14 June 2020 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 E939D3A07ED for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 09:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.com header.b=ESUbc+dP; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=cFrOEp5R
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 25cLdqAdlDc4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 09:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFF593A07EA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 09:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jkVdf-0007As-Vh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 16:37:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 16:37:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jkVdf-0007As-Vh@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <murch@fastmail.com>) id 1jkVdd-0007A2-O3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 16:37:41 +0000
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.20]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <murch@fastmail.com>) id 1jkVdb-0001xU-4f for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 16:37:41 +0000
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC3152B; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:37:26 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h= subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=/ E1itdELh4b8Ig3WM15NdTZU7W15tOI04IWTc+rIZpI=; b=ESUbc+dP9VmFS85rx pNu9UxQKE/28TgkweUczYJG3mCHHJfo7CjMrjjA2Sldzx2oKzyGHzeyuWTN0rZYi IpS77j7S7FUHt5iIY/gRWM1N+QTxM5tkea8tld0/UQyWOkETBs76FW1QT+Urp+CR 6aT4QIndLDPZ0DyVpNQIMg7t0czjPHF/xDQX0ciODEj+nh0LpXL4ADNNYWsYpTRm jjNyt8Ay20x7722y1jWkG+uN9E7A5lmG/dyZOnpYtQ5V6Wt0ojxx20xtt2q3XhlG kC1+Pqkh5cWQwME7oxUcO+uU0KqLrQ/CmCyM/aSF/AskYSDswMW+H889VTQRnIbl Io3Ww==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=/E1itdELh4b8Ig3WM15NdTZU7W15tOI04IWTc+rIZ pI=; b=cFrOEp5RwZSVHFvuOSmSwqAkKrE+TveQMakl+TPOYwj4n2aDWWRAa3jtc QHEukgF/7ceu+RBQq0tl6c5R1V7yrZL2nE3QE5i35b6HdGkte1YqM6TmDLImJkXm lvVm0+4eiH2Bh8kOVMEtgHRRWNzQ8h6+oVv2qJshRxb4D5+JITtnpVNLTtCVYZmT 8GEIE3iC7ZyRedTFWErogulGk2SbW7EqzQg6KvrLBsOVFROG/AirYiy02VVHklju NqzmcfjcbpLAca+roIKB/k5yJHEopEdq06XGcjXjSTTznjDhjOUQiiyfm8nur7GA nGBSFSwUSronvsUyX3Q+t6bTQ8u7Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:RVLmXk_m4VD8c77svPZXvBL9UJbMuF4rkMPOQfSYbsmiaoZ7cgY_bA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudeiiedguddthecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvnhcuofhurhgthhhishhonhcuoehmuhhrtghhsehf rghsthhmrghilhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhgfetleeuveeutdfhfe euvdeukefgkeejueeuhfdtleehteffgfdvteeuueejnecukfhppeejgedrjeejrdekhedr vdehtdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hmuhhrtghhsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:RVLmXssl5H8m2OgICe7kwHhVoRVpIl_XeFHvi0vEt-xhjzr3ywpZFA> <xmx:RVLmXqDRnEaV3i5u5c9xz5jixgcIOQOwCKwv8uziRKHojaSy-QaT5g> <xmx:RVLmXkdtfjljHcmKcvNdUX5L1M7QFyGpH2sSewCl8Ndx0c60hbrK3w> <xmx:RVLmXvYr5aHI1xOeKtLB6IHN963zDHz0twfuM0jKzIHqi2kezYycMw>
Received: from [192.168.1.22] (cpe-74-77-85-250.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.85.250]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 420BE3280066; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <159048066829.15360.13534615257560671669@ietfa.amsl.com> <2cd0d6c6-2ac9-5218-cf5c-068444b358aa@fastmail.com> <dc5e4d3d-c8e3-2f54-e9aa-59751bbf4f98@treenet.co.nz>
From: Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <b7e41e43-c85c-fa6e-bd08-2cf4fa770305@fastmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:37:24 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dc5e4d3d-c8e3-2f54-e9aa-59751bbf4f98@treenet.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.20; envelope-from=murch@fastmail.com; helo=wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1jkVdb-0001xU-4f d9bca1a93134fc7f8646624bf642189c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-08.txt
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/b7e41e43-c85c-fa6e-bd08-2cf4fa770305@fastmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37758
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 6/13/20 9:27 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 14/06/20 1:32 am, Ken Murchison wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I'm trying to verify my understanding of must-revalidate vs unqualified
>> no-cache in responses per the text in Sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.3
>> respectively.  Other than the point regarding the Authorization header
>> field and must-revalidate, is the difference that unqualified no-cache
>> requires validation for every request and must-revalidate only requires
>> validation after the response has become stale?
>>
> The specification difference is exactly that yes.


Thanks Amos.

> In practice implementations (particularly older RFC2616 based ones) may
> treat "no-cache" as if it were "no-store" and "must-revalidate" as if it
> were unqualified "no-cache".


So, given the possible ambiguity here, would a best practice for 
cacheable resources that should always be validated be for the origin 
server to return maxage: 0 or Expires in the past?

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Senior Software Developer
Fastmail US LLC

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email