W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Push and Caching

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:13:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW9Uq5R1KvuTXuT=xUdX_pVWikyAOMp=ixJe+c0NRs4Lg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25 August 2014 15:58, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
> On 26 Aug 2014, at 2:44 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22 August 2014 10:30, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> "While the stream identified by the promised stream ID is still open" - meaning that as long as the client has asked for it before the server has finished sending it?  That's a fairly small amount of time, particularly if the resource is very small, but sounds like a good starting point.
>>
>>
>> How would people feel if I removed that clause.  They can be
>> considered validated.  The period over which that validation applies
>> is then no different to a regular request/response exchange, which
>> suffers all of the same sorts of thorny and ambiguous validity issues.
>> (i.e., By avoiding an attempt to define validity expressly, we're not
>> making it worse, even if we're not tackling the issue fully.)
>
> You mean removing the entire sentence, or just the clause quoted above?


I was thinking just the quoted clause.  I think that we need this to
cover the no-cache case (and must-revalidate), but I don't think that
we need to fix the problem.

BEFORE:
Pushed responses are considered successfully validated on the origin
server (...) while the stream identified by the promised stream ID is
still open.

AFTER:
Pushed responses are considered successfully validated on the origin
server (...).

How about the past tense instead?

TAKE TWO:
Pushed responses are considered successfully validated on the origin
server (...) at the time that the response is generated.

Does this avoid the unended implication?
Received on Monday, 25 August 2014 23:13:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC