- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 09:20:50 +1000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- 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>
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 UTC