Re: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2

Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> Wed, 10 February 2016 07:07 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86D81B37C4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:07:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.003 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=-0.001, 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 KLLKeBBIEk_E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD0BB1B37C2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aTOnd-0000WO-5o for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:02:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:02:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aTOnd-0000WO-5o@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1aTOnY-0000VH-SP for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:02:48 +0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de ([217.91.35.233]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1aTOnO-0004j6-Jt for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:02:48 +0000
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 117) id E70D515A08D4; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:02:15 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1455087735; bh=tSDiIp4Rqse+frVRU2ioeDiB5jZuOJElTUrShYDJWjY=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=dZj/OvqAOgtScXUIl86yEwCVijubI7F1pgHN6SrBEVh2nY0ot1cszFJgsuCvXOg/E FdYuI8M2iLt8o1DudRti8wFWdKWcv2wMT8Kl2MC79kUHrWU3sXVpBHfA8OJs5fDE9G be8117EUX9/YL1J+1MapPPNYITLra0HKxaspO0lg=
Received: from [192.168.178.70] (unknown [93.211.108.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA96515A0334; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:02:11 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1455087735; bh=tSDiIp4Rqse+frVRU2ioeDiB5jZuOJElTUrShYDJWjY=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=dZj/OvqAOgtScXUIl86yEwCVijubI7F1pgHN6SrBEVh2nY0ot1cszFJgsuCvXOg/E FdYuI8M2iLt8o1DudRti8wFWdKWcv2wMT8Kl2MC79kUHrWU3sXVpBHfA8OJs5fDE9G be8117EUX9/YL1J+1MapPPNYITLra0HKxaspO0lg=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13D15)
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzzUQ+TEFZ5kML+Eagsb_O2pdmWosjMx_xspzrsCTy2hkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:02:10 +0100
Cc: Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F6EC743C-187F-4189-B78B-51079FBB5F02@greenbytes.de>
References: <CANatvzxcKS46iAqAdfBHuWPt5k3XkR79NDMPPtDakOb2jPAywA@mail.gmail.com> <56A26B1E.4050303@rd.bbc.co.uk> <CANatvzyHbyrK7cjh+JsRpTR42knc6LXX7GWzj8ZEYPgv8cs49g@mail.gmail.com> <56B0F0DC.3060807@rd.bbc.co.uk> <56B110EE.5050705@treenet.co.nz> <CABkgnnU=BEPC=2X1f+DKDd11CrEG1awDG=j+J-Ha3B-mTPxfvA@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB137425A025736905630C91BF87D00@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAAMqGzbuSNYC6ResLR=NT5bLoDFDBn+=jjk00jKTN2v5TFSZ5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzzUQ+TEFZ5kML+Eagsb_O2pdmWosjMx_xspzrsCTy2hkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.91.35.233; envelope-from=stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de; helo=mail.greenbytes.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.996, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.242, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1aTOnO-0004j6-Jt 685d7d9e31f763690b2de59a1553df46
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/F6EC743C-187F-4189-B78B-51079FBB5F02@greenbytes.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31064
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>

Is PUSHing a HEAD request, unconditional, not what you are looking for?

> Am 10.02.2016 um 02:50 schrieb Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 2016-02-09 20:46 GMT+09:00 Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>:
>>>> Not something that we've implemented yet, but it's a valid scenario.
>> 
>> Pushing 304 works both in Chrome and Firefox:
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2F2m0rSqGCVWFJnTzRWOWFWQmc , we have been
>> doing it for some time.
> 
> My understanding is that handling of pushed 304 in Chrome and Firefox
> is unreliable.
> 
> When sending a push, a server cannot be 100% certain if the client has
> the resource cached.  In other words, there is always a possibility
> that the pushed response will be considered as a response to a
> non-conditional HTTP request on the client side.
> 
> In other words, browsers that support 304 push should, when matching a
> pushed 304 response against a HTTP request, check that the request is
> conditional, and use the pushed response only if the request was
> conditional (additional checks might be necessary).  Otherwise, the
> pushed 304 request must be ignored, and the browser should pull the
> unconditional HTTP request.
> 
> However, my understanding is that both Chrome (48.0.2564.103) and
> Firefox (44.0.1) don't do the check; they consider pushed 304
> responses to be a response to a unconditional HTTP request.
> Therefore, there is a chance that you would fail to deliver the
> correct content if you use 304 push today.
> 
> -- 
> Kazuho Oku
>