The CDN-Cache-Control HTTP Response Header Field
draft-cdn-control-header-00

Versions: 00                                                            
HTTP                                                            S. Ludin
Internet-Draft                                                    Akamai
Intended status: Informational                             M. Nottingham
Expires: 27 May 2021                                              Fastly
                                                                   Y. Wu
                                                              Cloudflare
                                                        23 November 2020


            The CDN-Cache-Control HTTP Response Header Field
                      draft-cdn-control-header-00

Abstract

   This specification defines an HTTP header field that conveys HTTP
   cache directives to CDN caches.

Note to Readers

   _RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_

   The issues list for this draft can be found at https://github.com/
   cdn-specs/control-header/issues (https://github.com/cdn-specs/
   control-header/issues).

   The most recent (often, unpublished) draft is at https://cdn-
   specs.github.io/control-header/ (https://cdn-specs.github.io/control-
   header/).

   Recent changes are listed at https://github.com/cdn-specs/control-
   header/commits/main (https://github.com/cdn-specs/control-
   header/commits/main).

   See also the draft's current status in the IETF datatracker, at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cdn-control-header/
   (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cdn-control-header/).

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/.





Ludin, et al.              Expires 27 May 2021                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              CDN-Cache-Control              November 2020


   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 27 May 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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 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 CDN-Cache-Control Response Header Field . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Parsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.1.  Why not Surrogate-Control?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.2.  Why not mix with Cache-Control? . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.3.  Is this just for CDNs?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     A.4.  What if I use more than one CDN?  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   Many HTTP origin servers use Content Delivery Networks (i.e.,
   distributed HTTP gateways, usually implementing caches) to speed up
   distributing their content.

   While HTTP defines Cache-Control as a means of controlling cache
   behaviour for both private caches and shared caches, it is often
   desirable to give CDN caches separate instructions.  To meet this
   need, this specification defines a separate header field that conveys
   HTTP cache directives to CDN caches only.



Ludin, et al.              Expires 27 May 2021                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              CDN-Cache-Control              November 2020


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.

2.  The CDN-Cache-Control Response Header Field

   The CDN-Cache-Control response header field allows origin servers to
   control the behaviour of CDN caches interposed between them and
   clients, separately from other caches that might handle the response.

   It is a Dictionary Structured Header
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure], whose members can be any
   directive registered in the HTTP Cache Directive Registry
   https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-cache-directives/http-cache-
   directives.xhtml (https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-cache-
   directives/http-cache-directives.xhtml).

   When a valid CDN-Cache-Control header field is present in a response,
   CDN caches MUST ignore the Cache-Control and Expires response headers
   in that response.  As such, CDN-Cache-Control is a wholly separate
   way to control the CDN cache.  Note that this is on a response-by-
   response basis; if CDN-Cache-Control is not present, CDN caches MAY
   fall back to other control mechanisms as required by HTTP
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache].

   The semantics and precedence of cache directives in CDN-Cache-Control
   are the same as those in Cache-Control.  In particular, no-store and
   no-cache make max-age inoperative.

   Caches that use CDN-Cache-Control MUST implement the semantics of the
   following directives:

   *  max-age

   *  must-revalidate

   *  no-store

   *  no-cache

   *  private






Ludin, et al.              Expires 27 May 2021                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              CDN-Cache-Control              November 2020


   CDN caches that use CDN-Cache-Control MAY forward this header so that
   downstream CDN caches can use it as well.  However, doing so exposes
   its value to all downstream clients, which might be undesirable.  As
   a result, CDN caches that process this header field MAY remove it
   (for example, when configured to do so because it is known not to be
   used downstream).

   A CDN cache that does not use CDN-Cache-Control MUST pass the CDN-
   Cache-Control header through.

   Private caches SHOULD ignore the CDN-Cache-Control header field.

2.1.  Examples

   For example, the following header fields would instruct a CDN cache
   to consider the response fresh for 600 seconds, other shared caches
   for 120 seconds and any remaining caches for 60 seconds:

   Cache-Control: max-age=60, s-maxage=120
   CDN-Cache-Control: max-age=600

   These header fields would instruct a CDN cache to consider the
   response fresh for 600 seconds, while all other caches would be
   prevented from storing it:

   Cache-Control: no-store
   CDN-Cache-Control: max-age=600

   Because CDN-Cache-Control is not present, this header field would
   prevent all caches from storing the response:

   Cache-Control: no-store

   Whereas these would prevent all caches except for CDN caches from
   storing the response:

   Cache-Control: no-store
   CDN-Cache-Control: none

   (note that 'none' is not a registered cache directive; it is here to
   avoid sending a header field with an empty value, because such a
   header might not be preserved in all cases)









Ludin, et al.              Expires 27 May 2021                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              CDN-Cache-Control              November 2020


2.2.  Parsing

   CDN-Cache-Control is specified as a Structured Field
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure], and implementations are
   encouraged to use a parser for that format in the interests of
   robustness, interoperability and security.

   When an implementation parses CDN-Cache-Control as a Structured
   Field, each directive will be assigned a value.  For example, max-age
   has an integer value; no-store's value is boolean true, and no-
   cache's value can either be boolean true or a list of field names.
   Implementations SHOULD NOT accept other values (e.g. coerce a max-age
   with a decimal value into an integer).  Likewise, implementations
   SHOULD ignore parameters on directives, unless otherwise specified.

   However, implementers MAY initially reuse a Cache-Control parser for
   simplicity.  If they do so, they SHOULD observe the following points,
   to aid in a smooth transition to a full Structured Field parser and
   prevent interoperability issues:

   *  If a directive is repeated in the field value (e.g., "max-age=30,
      max-age=60"), the last value 'wins' (60, in this case)

   *  Members of the directives can have parameters (e.g., "max-
      age=30;a=b;c=d"), which should be ignored unless specified.

3.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of HTTP caching [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache]
   apply.

4.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-cache]
              Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
              Caching", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              httpbis-cache-12, 2 October 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/
              internet-drafts/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-12.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-header-structure]
              Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
              HTTP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              httpbis-header-structure-19, 3 June 2020,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-httpbis-
              header-structure-19.txt>.






Ludin, et al.              Expires 27 May 2021                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              CDN-Cache-Control              November 2020


   [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/info/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/info/rfc8174>.

Appendix A.  Frequently Asked Questions

A.1.  Why not Surrogate-Control?

   The Surrogate-Control header field is used by a variety of cache
   implementations, but their interpretation of it is not consistent;
   some only support 'no-store', others support a few directives, and
   still more support a larger variety of implementation-specific
   directives.  These implementations also differ in how they relate
   Surrogate-Control to Cache-Control and other mechanisms.

   Rather than attempting to align all of these different but well
   established behaviours (which would likely fail, because many
   existing deployments depend upon them) or defining a very small
   subset, a new header field seems more likely to provide clear
   interoperability without compromising functionality.

A.2.  Why not mix with Cache-Control?

   An alternative design would be to have CDN caches combine the
   directives found in Cache-Control and CDN-Cache-Control, considering
   their union as the directives that must be followed.

   While this would be slightly less verbose in some cases, it would
   make interoperability considerably more complex to achieve.  Consider
   the case when there are syntax errors in the argument of a directive;
   e.g., 'max-age=n60'.  Should that directive be ignored, or does it
   invalidate the entire header field value?  If the directive is
   ignored in CDN-Cache-Control, should the cache fall back to a value
   in Cache-Control?  And so on.

   Also, this approach would make it difficult to direct the CDN cache
   to store something while directing other caches to avoid storing it
   (because no-store overrides max-age).








Ludin, et al.              Expires 27 May 2021                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              CDN-Cache-Control              November 2020


A.3.  Is this just for CDNs?

   By default, yes.  There is often a need to differentiate between CDNs
   and gateway caches deployed local to the origin server; CDN-Cache-
   Control allows that.

   In some cases, a site might create a CDN by deploying gateway caches
   and routing traffic to them; this is, after all, how a CDN works at a
   high level.  To support this scenario, gateway caches MAY be
   configured to process the CDN-Cache-Control header field, but they
   MUST NOT default to supporting it.

A.4.  What if I use more than one CDN?

   Individual CDNs can choose to define their own control mechanisms
   that take precedence over this header field.  It is RECOMMENDED that
   they use a header whose value has the same syntax and semantics, and
   use a field name in the pattern "CDN_NAME-CDN-Cache-Control"; for
   example, the Foo CDN might register "Foo-CDN-Cache-Control".  When
   present on a response received by Foo CDN, that header field would
   override both CDN-Cache-Control and Cache-Control.  As with CDN-
   Cache-Control, Foo CDN could decide whether or not to strip that
   header from responses before sending them.

Authors' Addresses

   Stephen Ludin
   Akamai

   Email: sludin@ludin.org


   Mark Nottingham
   Fastly
   made in
   Prahran VIC
   Australia

   Email: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   https://www.mnot.net/


   Yuchen Wu
   Cloudflare

   Email: me@yuchenwu.net





Ludin, et al.              Expires 27 May 2021                  [Page 7]