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

Re: ID for Immutable

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 20:24:36 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUjXrJnsGJr2iipxJ_J2czORh6xGaoz73EQY-MqnXL1Hw@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>
On 29 October 2016 at 16:49, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote:
> So on these case that heuristic that ignore immutable for
> "weakly framed content" does not help either. 304 reply
> still confirms to the client to keep using the corrupted content.
>
> My suggestion using immutable=<property from bydy> for ignnoring
> immutable was making that more explicit than heuristic. But
> that does change  is that ignoring usefull or not.


We aren't really looking for perfect here.  Corruption happens, but is
highly unlikely in the cases that we use this:

Note that Firefox also requires HTTPS (I think).  So random corruption
is astronomically unlikely and well-framed responses (Content-Length
fits, it uses h2) mean that there is enough confidence that the
response was as the server intended.  The key thing for the document
is probably not to specify precisely what conditions that it would
consider this safe to use, but to note that a degree of care might be
needed to avoid having broken responses cached.

Yes, the server might screw up, but the client won't be responsible
for that.  The server needs to create a new resource to fix it.  Or
maybe user will notice a problem and reload.
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2016 09:25:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 29 October 2016 09:25:12 UTC