-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 231
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
gateways: document Content-Location #471
Conversation
and some cleanup
This is duplicated content, but is harmless, and having it here will save everyone a lot of headache debugging weird HTTP caching setups.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Lgtm, thank you for documenting this.
Added some additional content, if looks good, feel free to merge.
(no IPIP as this is documenting/filling spec gaps, and not changing existing specs)
A Client SHOULD include the `format` query parameter in the request URL, in | ||
addition to the `Accept` header. This provides the best interoperability and | ||
ensures consistent HTTP cache behavior across various gateway implementations. | ||
|
||
A Gateway SHOULD include the | ||
[`Content-Location`](#content-location-response-header) header in the response when: | ||
- the request contains an `Accept` header specifying a well-known response | ||
format, but the URL does not include the `format` query parameter | ||
- the `format` parameter is present, but does not match the format from `Accept` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@hacdias I've added these clarifications as SHOULDs, the goal here is to push everyone towards including explicit ?format
in requests – haves a lot of headache in debugging interop/caching problems.
We've always been doing this internally (including both format
and Accept
), this writes it down as suggested practice.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it problematic then that some information in accept headers cannot be expressed in the format parameters (e.g. dfs, duplicates and version for CARs)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Potentially, could cause issues at some point in the future when a single gateway supports something more than "the Kubo default" and clients actually request non-default CAR variant, including custom implementations with edge cases like #431.
That is why, to avoid cache override problems in the future, we revised position on these, add car-*
URL params in #472. This allows us to explicitly list them in Content-Location
when non-default CAR was requested (code for rainbow in ipfs/boxo#603)
gateway: car-* request query parameters
Document
Content-Location
as part of the work in ipfs/boxo#603.Context: ipfs/boxo#606