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

Re: Push and Caching

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:48:32 +1000
Cc: William Chow <wchow@mobolize.com>, 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>
Message-Id: <D92F296B-3E9A-42B3-978C-AC319C072C60@mnot.net>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
"fresh on the origin server" isn't relevant; what's relevant is whether they're fresh in the cache, and that can be determined by examining the response.

The issue at hand is whether the pushed response needs to be revalidated, as per the definition of no-cache.



On 26 Aug 2014, at 3:49 pm, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:

> 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/

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 06:49:05 UTC

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