W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: Confusion about Age: accuracy vs. safety

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 17:02:00 MDT
Message-Id: <9608240002.AA01626@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1452
    My main concern is that with the `every proxy cache must add an Age
    header' interpretation, first-hand responses with max-age=0 or some
    other small max-age value may have been marked as aged and gotten a
    warning:stale header by the time they have passed a few 1.1 proxy
    caches.  This is extremely bad because
      a) the next proxy might retry the request to get a fresh response,
	 and might even go into an infinite retry-loop when it keeps
	 getting responses with Age: 1.
I do not see anything in the draft specification that requires a
proxy to retry a request until it gets a fresh response.  In fact,
it seems ludicrous for an intermediate cache to do a retry purely
on this basis, since (both because of the case you observe, and
the possibility that an inbound cache is simply ignoring the
Cache-control headers) if you get a stale response on your first
try, an immediate retry is likely to result in the same error.

The only place that the draft currently suggests an automatic
retry (if my memory is accurate) when an actual communication
failure occurs (e.g., when the server closes the connection
before the client gets the entire response).

If people are confused by this, then maybe we need to add some
clarifying language that makes it explict: a proxy SHOULD NOT
(or perhaps MUST NOT) retry a request that completed with
a successful transmission of a response, whether or not that
response is acceptable to the requesting client.

      b) the user will get a big *warning:stale* message from the browser
	 while in fact nothing is wrong (the response is firsthand, so it
	 is as fresh as it can be).  Such warnings might drown out the
	 actual warnings when responses *are* stale, might cause lots of
	 reload-pressing, might cause service authors to never use
	 max-age=0, etc.

The circumstances under which this could happen are:
	(1) hosts with badly incorrect clocks
	(2) origin servers that set very short max-age values
	and networks with relatively large RTTs

Either one of these circumstances ought to be corrected (especially
the wrong-clock case) and so we ought to develop techniques for
diagnosing and reporting these problems, not hiding them.  The
consequences of inadvertently and silently delivering stale info to
users are far more likely to cause servers to use max-age=0 than
the "cry wolf" problem you think you see here.

    My proposal to Jeff at the time was something like the following Age
    header rule:
     - MUST add Age when serving from cache memory
     - MAY add Age when relaying a response from a 1.0 proxy
     - MUST NOT add Age when relaying a response from a 1.1 or higher proxy

After thinking about the possible failure modes, I believe that Koen's
proposal would be acceptable to me, but only with the following

     - MUST add Age when serving from cache memory
     - MUST add Age when relaying a response from a pre-1.1 source
     - SHOULD NOT add Age when relaying a response from a 1.1 or
       higher source

I replaced Koen's "MAY" with a "MUST" because that is necessary to
prevent the wrong-clock failure mode that I described.

I replaced his "MUST NOT" with a "SHOULD NOT" because I see no
demonstrably serious consequences here that would merit making this a
"MUST NOT", and it's quite conceivable that future experience will
reveal cases where a proxy might want to add Age when relaying from a
1.1 proxy; we shouldn't ban this unnecessarily.

I replaced "proxy" with "source" because otherwise there's no guidance
for what to do with responses received directly from an origin server.

I replaced "1.0" with "pre-1.1" because there may still be some 0.9
systems out there.

Received on Friday, 23 August 1996 17:55:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:18 UTC