Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)

Erik Nygren <> Mon, 18 August 2014 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD261A06FC for <>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.347
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v349YZiqOb9X for <>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80BDA1A06C8 for <>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1XJQtG-0003NP-FR for; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:38:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:38:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1XJQsv-0003MK-VM for; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:38:21 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1XJQsv-0004xd-9U for; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:38:21 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id la4so6201919vcb.33 for <>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=C6dQlq6sc7+ClIqNrN+1PiP4DDOASkL/wQc9Cu4l1V4=; b=i77wefcn/ISsBctE1mhgDg7+4wo/zMZfTy1i1fgBQsen25wcaHokzd7/pfpIcIYvnH nNcvI6iiGBu6KlDM0tVfWK1IfLc34tcmGm1PwMRSCU6wt/VlmTR7kCloBc7tKqeq7kFX kprz/+VqcRowuMUNKwn4gaHA/vGCacxz6F4fFIa/YBswk1Ka5umRKrJqwmwS8+QYg0Ug J16abntHse+HjehtV9Z5ArPCw3ImiARzV1A/M2edwjrY3/bgFsVDmH3NZbP3R39u1W0+ kLbPyaM2EzThLCg3lkkbH60Ze0lc8hV4e69vV2lI53X7PZ2HAUXntJyCRL6LahNAVOq8 ByNg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id dj5mr26028543vcb.19.1408383475560; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:37:55 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: B3HN5RKG0idM7NrK4h97yPwyllI
Message-ID: <>
From: Erik Nygren <>
To: Martin Thomson <>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1c272c4b9860500ead4c7"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.763, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1XJQsv-0004xd-9U 733f369d6f6f2b66b0df1eebddbc8f2c
Subject: Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/26640
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martin Thomson <>

> I think that we should say that the tuple of (origin, service
> protocol, service endpoint) is the key and that new advertisements
> that match update the expiration time.

Would it make more sense for (origin) to be the key with a set of (service
protocol, service endpoint) tuples being the value?  This allows a reset or
correction (or removal?) by publishing a new set of [(service protcol,
service endpoint), ...] values.

On a related note, when sketching out a server-side implementation it
became clear that it is hard to distinguish the separate use-cases
(alternate protocol, port, or endpoint) from the current "Alt-Svc-Used"
value.  This ends up being problematic in cases where a server could
receive Alt-Svc from either direction (from a separate endpoint or just a
protocol+port upgrade on the same endpoint).  One option which would help
here without causing privacy problems would be to make Alt-Svc-Used an
enumeration or bitmask rather than just a "0"/"1" value.