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

Re: HTTP2 Expression of Interest : Squid

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:27:51 +0200
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, tom <zs68j2ee@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120715172751.GA22790@1wt.eu>
Hi Roberto,

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:05:31AM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
> Note that, if ever one will wish to implement server push or anything
> similar, there are ordering requirements that must be placed on at least
> the content delivery of the requested resource and its associated metadata.

Doug's EOI made me think again about server push. You may remember, we
discussed the subject for countless hours when we met, with the problem
basically being that when a client fetches a page, it also wants the
objects in that page. Doug seems to need server push for instant delivery
to the client of fresh new contents, which is different. And if we look
at how the web is currently changing, we have more and more application
code running on the browser (sometimes a smartphone) which parses contents
delivered by the server. I suspect that once we have MUX in WebSocket, this
new model will become even more prevalent.

All this to say that maybe in the near future, the real need for server
push will be for raw data processed by the application and not that much
about page objects. I may be wrong, but this is probably something to
think about, since in the end it will tell us whether we have to break
the request/response model or not, which has a huge impact on content
filtering BTW.

> It is all cost/benefit tradeoffs, all the way down. :)

Exactly :-)

Cheers,
Willy
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2012 17:28:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 15 July 2012 17:28:44 GMT