Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10: 2.3. The "http-opportunistic" well-known URI / cache-control

Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> Sun, 05 February 2017 08:27 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 A70B612945C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 00:27:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rAhE6POHKYVp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 00:27:25 -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 20BC11293D6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 00:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1caI79-0002bA-Ec for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 08:24:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 08:24:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1caI79-0002bA-Ec@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1caI75-0002aN-GU for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 08:23:59 +0000
Received: from smtpvgate.fmi.fi ([193.166.223.36]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1caI6z-0003AO-0u for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 08:23:54 +0000
Received: from basaari.fmi.fi (basaari.fmi.fi [193.166.211.14]) (envelope-from hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi) by smtpVgate.fmi.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/smtpgate-20161014/smtpVgate) with ESMTP id v158NNhx016779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:23:23 +0200
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi by basaari.fmi.fi with ESMTP id v158NNV4025351 ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:23:23 +0200
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by shell.siilo.fmi.fi with ESMTP id v158NMFT013762 ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:23:23 +0200
Received: by shell.siilo.fmi.fi id v158NMnv013761; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:23:22 +0200
Message-Id: <201702050823.v158NMnv013761@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVSWuCK2=Jg1i5mamiFa3_9RYfU6QgFWhb5tDUyE0Ku2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnVBCj3LGNM6UH51okP9TQrxEmJwnXbg62qq9ex3fH-Xog@mail.gmail.com> <20170204094624.D7A691D29E@welho-filter2.welho.com> <CABkgnnVSWuCK2=Jg1i5mamiFa3_9RYfU6QgFWhb5tDUyE0Ku2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:23:22 +0200 (EET)
Sender: hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi
From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
CC: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version ME+ 2.5 PLalpha44]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: 3 received headers rewritten with id 20170205/01115/01
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: ID 1117/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Filter: basaari.fmi.fi: ID 293129/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtpVgate.fmi.fi [193.166.223.36]); Sun, 05 Feb 2017 10:23:23 +0200 (EET)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=193.166.223.36; envelope-from=hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi; helo=smtpVgate.fmi.fi
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.437, BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1caI6z-0003AO-0u be48c7243cd6416fc7eacac2b77c8b86
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10: 2.3. The "http-opportunistic" well-known URI / cache-control
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/201702050823.v158NMnv013761@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33444
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>

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>om>: (Sun Feb  5 01:57:28 2017)
> On 4 February 2017 at 20:46, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote:
> > In other words is client allowed use http-opportunistic response
> > from another alternative service for that purpose, when response
> > was cache-control = no-store ?
> 
> I'd say no.  The same goes for no-cache I think.

With cache-control = no-cache client can use conditional request
for /.well-known/http-opportunistic poll on chosen alternative 
service.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-5.2.1.4

| 5.2.1.4.  no-cache
|
|   The "no-cache" request directive indicates that a cache MUST NOT use
|   a stored response to satisfy the request without successful
|   validation on the origin server.

2.3.  The "http-opportunistic" well-known URI
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10#section-2.3

|   o  That response is fresh [RFC7234] (potentially through revalidation
|      [RFC7232]), and

4.3.1.  Sending a Validation Request
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.3.1

4.3.3.  Handling a Validation Response
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-4.3.3


|   o  A 304 (Not Modified) response status code indicates that the
|      stored response can be updated and reused; see Section 4.3.4.

So client can use http-opportunistic response for that purpose
from another alternative service when cached response was 
cache-control = no-cache and chosen alternative service
returned 304 (Not Modified) for conditional 
/.well-known/http-opportunistic request.

> > I think that it is not possible to use response from another
> > alternative service on that case and therefore cache-control = no-store
> > implies that client must retrieve /.well-known/http-opportunistic
> > from chosen alternative service.
> 
> That sounds right.

/ Kari Hurtta