W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Some thoughts on server push and client pull

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 09:20:50 +1000
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Alek Storm <alek.storm@gmail.com>, Jonathan Silvera <jsilvera@microsoft.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Matthew Cox <macox@microsoft.com>, Ivan Pashov <ivanpash@microsoft.com>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <77FD46A8-0E14-4933-B1A2-0B51D6363DD8@mnot.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

On 09/06/2012, at 3:27 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:

> On 8 June 2012 00:16, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> WRT SPDY and server push, I'd suggest keeping it in, but making sure it's separable, so that the decision can be delayed until you have more data.
> 
> I don't know.  Not to abuse the analogy, but I might like giant wooden
> horses and still have an aversion to having strange men inside my city
> walls.  Or, from another angle, it's going to be hard enough to get
> the simple things right, why add more stuff.  We're here to solve
> head-of-line blocking, not to create an standard analogue of the same.
> 
> The idea that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity is a fallacy.
> If you care about this feature, then make sure that no changes ruin
> the protocol such that push couldn't be added.
> 
> The trade-offs involved with binary serialization/compression,
> multiplexing and the other properties are well enough understood to
> retain those.  On the other hand, the unilateral delivery of
> unrequested content is not.


Martin,

I'm talking about in the short-to-medium term; i.e., we don't have to decide this *now*, but we very well may in a month or two.

Regards,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 23:21:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 June 2012 23:21:41 GMT