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

Re: Push and Caching

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:49:26 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNAxpaZRsK-Uu5biSvzt3kLhY4Bcw4pQgXSVcKYmKK-E_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 August 2014 15:18, William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com> wrote:
> Can "fresh" work? I agree that it perhaps implies caching as well,
> but at least it avoids the notion that the server actually performed
> any validation (which it could not, without the client providing
> validators for the pushed responses).

"Pushed responses are considered fresh on the origin server (...) at
the time that the response is generated." Makes sense to me, although it
starts to sound a bit no-brainish.

​And regarding your other question:​

> Also, which response is the point of reference for
> validity/freshness? The proposed sentence seems to refer to a pushed
> response being "validated" at the time that the pushed response
> itself was generated. I assume we'd actually want to treat the pushed
> responses to be fresh at the time the response for the
> associated/original request was generated.

It can only be fresh at the time the pushed response itself is
generated, surely. The original response triggered the *need* for the
pushed resource, but there's nothing stopping the value of that pushed
resource changing between the need being determined and bytes being
transmitted.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 05:49:53 UTC

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