W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: ID for Immutable

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:50:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpNAUccK0FO2HyvL7etnxEg2FRt0tvXwXxkR1q5wLy_gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
the notion of integrity hashes have failed in the past (notably md5)..
separable from immutable imo and would rather not tie that anchor to its
fate.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
wrote:

> > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcmanus-immutable-00
>
> |    o  User-Agents often provide two different refresh mechanisms: reload
> |       and some form of force-reload.  The latter is used to rectify
> |      interrupted loads and other corruption.  These reloads should
> |      ignore immutable as well.
>
> How about making it
>
> Cache-Control: max-age=31536000, immutable=<hash-function-value>
>
>
> So that immutable does not have effect if result of hash-function
> does not give same value that what is value of immutable
> cache control.
>
> Several immutable cache controls are invalid if they are result
> of same hash-function.
>
> If server can't calculate hash-function over resource,
> is is really static non-caching resource?
>
> I think that this protects agaist that interrupted loads
> becomes immutable.
>
> / Kari Hurtta
>
>
Received on Friday, 28 October 2016 14:50:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 28 October 2016 14:50:49 UTC