Re: No-Vary-Search

Rory Hewitt <rory.hewitt@gmail.com> Tue, 18 June 2024 22:45 UTC

Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 22:44:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1sJhZE-00GpI5-2V@mab.w3.org>
Received-SPF: pass (puck.w3.org: domain of gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::42a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42a; envelope-from=roryhewitt@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42a.google.com;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACuR13cnHHoRv_Z-HtJeOyJqZb7AVU-_udQ=R_x9qQ1_JeP=KQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmMwDwZ8RB0Zz5GCbPeSFH-1tVgTW-hy4_0Fd1L90hNi3h0RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmMwDwxpy7QvJBx01WZpHmH=c2QKE6Q7iBAQisNSqRaxBoz3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACuR13fENsddR_-3NK+w8w5OvcOwnyt=_eiHsK0E0S2X4rr=ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmMwDyMZz89pRY9OPimPDR1+-nULW9ZC8DjcYfOWvuWjUdtYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8qwaCo1gfWaUmSi+V3_bth_Ng8id6UWvY7BeKKA4h3WuMT9A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF8qwaCo1gfWaUmSi+V3_bth_Ng8id6UWvY7BeKKA4h3WuMT9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rory Hewitt <rory.hewitt@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:44:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEmMwDxN-SGQemcmTEoYS4YfVV23Q21c+Y_ePk4X7i4oTfn9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Cc: Jeremy Roman <jbroman@chromium.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007cd92f061b31d36f"
Subject: Re: No-Vary-Search
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAEmMwDxN-SGQemcmTEoYS4YfVV23Q21c+Y_ePk4X7i4oTfn9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

<bikeshedding>

Well I'm basing my "it's about caching" argument on both the RFC draft
itself and also the *excellent* explainer at
https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/blob/main/no-vary-search.md which
is explicitly all about caching :)

I think we (and others?) agree that "search" isn't a good name segment due
to its multiple meanings. Personally, I think using the "no-" prefix isn't
necessarily helpful, since this header can be used to specify what *should
and should not* be part of the cache key. So my preference would be for it
to be "Vary-Cache" or "Vary-Params" or "Cache-Params".

</bikeshedding>

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 3:34 PM David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
wrote:

> <bikeshed>
> I think No-Vary-Cache is a worse header name than No-Vary-Search. It says
> nothing about the URL query/search field and could just as easily describe
> the HTTP request headers or other things that the response doesn't vary on.
> That means it should include *something* that indicates the URL
> query/search field.
>
> As for the Cache part, it's not *really* a statement about the cache
> anyway. It's a statement about whether the *response* to this request
> varies on some property. The cache is just the primary reason for the
> client to care about this information. So, matching the precedent with the
> Vary header, I think "Vary" is enough to capture this aspect of the name
> without adding "Cache".
>
> I agree the combination of the two is awkward. It's unfortunate that
> "search" is a bit overloaded of a term, and everywhere is inconsistent
> about whether it's the "query" or the "search", but removing any reference
> to the field at all is even worse. (Tossing out an idea without opinion,
> No-Vary-(Search|Query|URL)-Params? It's really the individual params being
> targeted and not the overall search/query string.)
> </bikeshed>
>

No-Vary-Search Jeremy Roman
Re: No-Vary-Search Mark Nottingham
Re: No-Vary-Search Jeremy Roman
Re: No-Vary-Search Mark Nottingham
Re: No-Vary-Search Jeremy Roman
Re: No-Vary-Search gs-lists-ietf-http-wg
Re: No-Vary-Search Jeremy Roman
Re: No-Vary-Search gs-lists-ietf-http-wg
Re: No-Vary-Search Mark Nottingham
Re: No-Vary-Search gs-lists-ietf-http-wg
Re: No-Vary-Search Rory Hewitt
Re: No-Vary-Search Rory Hewitt
Re: No-Vary-Search Jeremy Roman
Re: No-Vary-Search Rory Hewitt
Re: No-Vary-Search David Benjamin
Re: No-Vary-Search Rory Hewitt
Re: No-Vary-Search Rory Hewitt
Re: No-Vary-Search Watson Ladd
Re: No-Vary-Search Jeremy Roman
Re: No-Vary-Search gs-lists-ietf-http-wg