


Network Working Group                                      M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft                                               Yahoo! Inc.
Intended status: Informational                         February 19, 2007
Expires: August 23, 2007


            The stale-if-error HTTP Cache-Control Extension
                draft-nottingham-http-stale-if-error-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   The stale-if-error HTTP Cache-Control extension improves availability
   of some kinds of cached content by allowing servers and clients to
   instruct caches to use stale responses when certain error conditions
   are encountered.







Nottingham               Expires August 23, 2007                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               stale-if-error                February 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  The stale-if-error Cache-Control Extension  . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Response stale-if-error Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 6








































Nottingham               Expires August 23, 2007                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               stale-if-error                February 2007


1.  Introduction

   HTTP [RFC2616] requires that caches "respond to a request with the
   most up-to-date response held... that is appropriate to the request,"
   although "in carefully controlled circumstances" a stale response is
   allowed to be returned.

   Those circumstances are not well-defined.  Often, it is useful to
   return a stale response when an error -- e.g., a 500 Internal Server
   Error, a network segment, or DNS failure -- is encountered, but
   caches are understandably reluctant to act without explicit
   instructions about the appropriate behaviour.

   The stale-if-error HTTP Cache-Control extension addresses this by
   allowing origin servers as well as clients to instruct caches to use
   a stale response under certain conditions, rather than returning a
   "hard" error, thus improving availability.


2.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119], as
   scoped to those conformance targets.

   This specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur Form of RFC2616
   [RFC2616], and includes the delta-seconds rule from that
   specification.


3.  The stale-if-error Cache-Control Extension

   The stale-if-error Cache-Control extension indicates that when an
   error is encountered, a cached stale response MAY be used to satisfy
   the request, regardless of other freshness information.

     stale-if-error = "stale-if-error" "=" delta-seconds

   When used as a request Cache-Control extension, its scope of
   application is the request it appears in; when used as a response
   Cache-Control extension, its scope is any request applicable to the
   cached response it occurs in.

   Its value indicates the upper limit to staleness; when the cached
   response is more stale than the indicated amount, the cached response
   MUST NOT be used to satisfy the request.




Nottingham               Expires August 23, 2007                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               stale-if-error                February 2007


   In this context, an error is any situation which would result in a
   500, 501, 502, 503 or 504 HTTP response status code to be returned.
   Future extensions may define additional error conditions.

   Note that this directive only affects the freshness of a response in
   an implementation that recognises it; stale cached responses that are
   used SHOULD still be visibly stale when sent.


4.  Response stale-if-error Example

   A response containing:

     HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     Cache-Control: max-age=600, stale-if-error=1200
     Content-Type: text/plain

     success

   indicates that it is fresh for 600 seconds, and that it may be used
   if an error is encountered after becoming stale for an additional
   1200 seconds.

   Thus, if the cache attempts to validate 900 seconds afterwards and
   encounters:

     HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error
     Content-Type: text/plain

     failure

   the successful response can be returned instead:

     HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     Cache-Control: max-age=600, stale-if-error=1200
     Age: 900
     Content-Type: text/plain

     succcess

   After the age is greater than 1800 seconds (i.e., it has been stale
   for 1200 seconds), the cache must write the error message through.

     HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error
     Content-Type: text/plain

     failure




Nottingham               Expires August 23, 2007                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               stale-if-error                February 2007


5.  Security Considerations

   This mechanism does not have any security-specific concerns.


6.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to John Nienart, Henrik Nordstrom, Evan Torrie, and Chris
   Westin for their suggestions.  The author takes all responsibility
   for errors and omissions.


Author's Address

   Mark Nottingham
   Yahoo! Inc.

   Email: mnot@yahoo-inc.com
   URI:   http://www.mnot.net/






















Nottingham               Expires August 23, 2007                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               stale-if-error                February 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Nottingham               Expires August 23, 2007                [Page 6]

