Re: Push and Caching

Well, we’re trying to tie in the concept of cache validation (which is deeply part of the caching model) to this unnatural (to the caching model) interaction. Not sure how to do that without saying “validation”…


On 26 Aug 2014, at 3:04 pm, William Chow <> wrote:

> Is “validated” the right term? It seems this could be confused with cache validation, which is only applicable to a cached response and is generally/intuitively viewed as a client-initiated action.
> 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.
> --Will
> From: Greg Wilkins [] 
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:48 PM
> To: Martin Thomson
> Cc: Mark Nottingham; Mike Bishop; Patrick McManus; William Chow; HTTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: Push and Caching
> On 26 August 2014 09:13, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
> Pushed responses are considered successfully validated on the origin
> server (...) at the time that the response is generated.
> I'm good with this one.     I like the instantaneous nature of it.
> Any attempt to define the ongoing validity of a resource implies that something will be checking that on the server side and overlaps with the cache control headers.
> cheers
> --
> Greg Wilkins <> 
> HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
>  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 05:07:59 UTC