HTTP Cache Groups
draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-07

HTTP                                                       M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft                                               16 May 2025
Intended status: Standards Track                                        
Expires: 17 November 2025

                           HTTP Cache Groups
                   draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups-07

Abstract

   This specification introduces a means of describing the relationships
   between stored responses in HTTP caches, "grouping" them by
   associating a stored response with one or more strings.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the HTTP Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/.  Working Group
   information can be found at https://httpwg.org/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/cache-groups.

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 https://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 17 November 2025.

Nottingham              Expires 17 November 2025                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              HTTP Cache Groups                   May 2025

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  The Cache-Groups Response Header Field  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Identifying Grouped Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Cache Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  Invalidation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  The Cache-Group-Invalidation Response Header Field  . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  HTTP Field Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   HTTP caching [HTTP-CACHING] operates at the granularity of a single
   resource; the freshness of one stored response does not affect that
   of others.  This granularity can make caching more efficient -- for
   example, when a page is composed of many assets that have different
   requirements for caching.

   However, there are also cases where the relationship between stored
   responses could be used to improve cache efficiency.

Nottingham              Expires 17 November 2025                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              HTTP Cache Groups                   May 2025

   For example, it is often necessary to invalidate a set of related
   resources.  This might be because a state-changing request has side
   effects on other resources, or it might be purely for administrative
   convenience (e.g., "invalidate this part of the site").  Grouping
   responses together provides a dedicated way to express these
   relationships, instead of relying on things like URL structure.

   In addition to sharing invalidation events, the relationships
   indicated by grouping can also be used by caches to optimise their
   operation; for example, it could be used to inform the operation of
   cache eviction algorithms.

   Section 2 introduces a means of describing the relationships between
   stored responses in HTTP caches, by associating those responses with
   one or more groups that reflect those relationships.  It also
   describes how caches can use that information to apply invalidation
   events to members of a group.

   Section 3 introduces one new source of such events: a HTTP response
   header field that allows a state-changing response to trigger a group
   invalidation.

   These mechanisms operate within a single cache, across the stored
   responses associated with a single origin server (see Section 2.1).
   They do not address the issues of synchronising state between
   multiple caches (e.g., in a hierarchy or mesh), nor do they
   facilitate association of stored responses from disparate origins.

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   This specification uses the following terminology from
   [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]: List, String, Parameter.

2.  The Cache-Groups Response Header Field

   The Cache-Groups HTTP Response Header is a List of Strings (Sections
   3.1 and 3.3.1 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]).  Each member of the list is a
   value that identifies a group that the response belongs to.  These
   strings are opaque -- while they might have some meaning to the
   server that creates them, the cache does not have any insight into
   their structure or content (beyond uniquely identifying a group).

Nottingham              Expires 17 November 2025                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              HTTP Cache Groups                   May 2025

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/javascript
   Cache-Control: max-age=3600
   Cache-Groups: "scripts"

   The ordering of members is not significant.  Unrecognised Parameters
   are to be ignored.

   Implementations MUST support at least 32 groups in a field value,
   with up to at least 32 characters in each member.  Note that generic
   limitations on HTTP field lengths may constrain the size of this
   field value in practice.

2.1.  Identifying Grouped Responses

   Two responses stored in the same cache are considered to belong to
   the same group when all of the following conditions are met:

   1.  They both contain a Cache-Groups response header field that
       contains the same String (in any position in the List), when
       compared character-by-character (case sensitive).

   2.  They both share the same URI origin (per Section 4.3.1 of
       [HTTP]).

2.2.  Cache Behaviour

2.2.1.  Invalidation

   A cache that invalidates a stored response MAY invalidate any stored
   responses that share groups (per Section 2.1) with that response.
   Note that further grouped invalidations are not triggered by a
   grouped invalidation; i.e., this mechanism does not "cascade."

   Cache extensions can explicitly strengthen the requirement above.
   For example, a targeted cache control header field [TARGETED] might
   specify that caches processing it are required to invalidate such
   responses.

3.  The Cache-Group-Invalidation Response Header Field

   The Cache-Group-Invalidation response header field is a List of
   Strings (Sections 3.1 and 3.3.1 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]).  Each member
   of the list is a value that identifies a group that the response
   invalidates, per Section 2.2.1.

Nottingham              Expires 17 November 2025                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              HTTP Cache Groups                   May 2025

   For example, following a POST request that has side effects on two
   cache groups, the corresponding response could indicate that stored
   responses associated with either or both of those groups should be
   invalidated with:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: text/html
   Cache-Group-Invalidation: "eurovision-results", "australia"

   The Cache-Group-Invalidation header field MUST be ignored on
   responses to requests that have a safe method (e.g., GET; see
   Section 9.2.1 of [HTTP]).

   A cache that receives a Cache-Group-Invalidation header field on a
   response to an unsafe request MAY invalidate any stored responses
   that share groups (per Section 2.1) with any of the listed groups.

   Cache extensions can explicitly strengthen the requirement above.
   For example, a targeted cache control header field [TARGETED] might
   specify that caches processing it are required to respect the Cache-
   Group-Invalidation signal.

   The ordering of members is not significant.  Unrecognised Parameters
   are to be ignored.

   Implementations MUST support at least 32 groups in a field value,
   with up to at least 32 characters in each member.  Note that generic
   limitations on HTTP field lengths may constrain the size of this
   field value in practice.

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA should perform the following tasks:

4.1.  HTTP Field Names

   Enter the following into the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field
   Name Registry:

   *  Field Name: Cache-Groups

   *  Status: permanent

   *  Reference: RFC nnnn

   *  Comments:

   *  Field Name: Cache-Group-Invalidation

Nottingham              Expires 17 November 2025                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              HTTP Cache Groups                   May 2025

   *  Status: permanent

   *  Reference: RFC nnnn

   *  Comments:

5.  Security Considerations

   This mechanism allows resources that share an origin to invalidate
   each other.  Because of this, origins that represent multiple parties
   (sometimes referred to as "shared hosting") might allow one party to
   group its resources with those of others, or to send signals which
   have side effects upon them.

   Shared hosts that wish to mitigate these risks can control access to
   the header fields defined in this specification.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [HTTP]     Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

   [HTTP-CACHING]
              Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Caching", STD 98, RFC 9111,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9111, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]
              Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
              HTTP", RFC 9651, DOI 10.17487/RFC9651, September 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9651>.

6.2.  Informative References

Nottingham              Expires 17 November 2025                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              HTTP Cache Groups                   May 2025

   [TARGETED] Ludin, S., Nottingham, M., and Y. Wu, "Targeted HTTP Cache
              Control", RFC 9213, DOI 10.17487/RFC9213, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9213>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Stephen Ludin for his review and suggestions.

Author's Address

   Mark Nottingham
   Prahran
   Australia
   Email: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   https://www.mnot.net/

Nottingham              Expires 17 November 2025                [Page 7]