Cache Digests for HTTP/2
draft-kazuho-h2-cache-digest-00
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2016-01-06
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
html
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Document shepherd |
|
No shepherd assigned
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group K. Oku
Internet-Draft DeNA Co, Ltd.
Intended status: Informational M. Nottingham
Expires: July 10, 2016 January 7, 2016
Cache Digests for HTTP/2
draft-kazuho-h2-cache-digest-00
Abstract
This specification defines a HTTP/2 frame type to allow clients to
inform the server of their cache's contents. Servers can then use
this to inform their choices of what to push to clients.
Note to Readers
The issues list for this draft can be found at
https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/h2-cache-digest .
The most recent (often, unpublished) draft is at
https://mnot.github.io/I-D/h2-cache-digest/ .
Recent changes are listed at https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-
pages/h2-cache-digest .
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 10, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Oku & Nottingham Expires July 10, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Cache Digests for HTTP/2 January 2016
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The CACHE_DIGEST Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Computing the Digest-Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
HTTP/2 [RFC7540] allows a server to "push" synthetic request/response
pairs into a client's cache optimistically. While there is strong
interest in using this facility to improve perceived Web browsing
performance, it is sometimes counterproductive because the client
might already have cached the "pushed" response.
When this is the case, the bandwidth used to "push" the response is
effectively wasted, and represents opportunity cost, because it could
be used by other, more relevant responses. HTTP/2 allows a stream to
be cancelled by a client using a RST_STREAM frame in this situation,
but there is still at least one round trip of potentially wasted
capacity even then.
This specification defines a HTTP/2 frame type to allow clients to
inform the server of their cache's contents using a Golumb-Rice Coded
Set. Servers can then use this to inform their choices of what to
push to clients.
Oku & Nottingham Expires July 10, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Cache Digests for HTTP/2 January 2016
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
Show full document text