- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:31:34 +1200
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, tom <zs68j2ee@gmail.com>
On 16.07.2012 05:05, 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. > > It is all cost/benefit tradeoffs, all the way down. :) Aye, we left this out of the network-friendly draft -00 due to being undecided and push discussions being up in the air. But after reading the other proposals (WebSockets RFC and Montenegro draft specifically) I have come up with a nice way within the network-friendly framing syntax to perform user sessions and server-push *without* baking either of those features into the transport frame syntax directly. This meets the gateway to HTTP/1 requirements fror immediate implementation rollouts and allows those features to be easily added as extensions once we have more migration away from HTTP/1. In a similar way to how we have the messaging design and layout in the current HTTPbis drafts, with Ranges, Auth and Caching as separate followup drafts/sections. AYJ > > -=R > On Jul 15, 2012 3:31 AM, "Julian Reschke" wrote: > >> On 2012-07-15 12:19, tom wrote: >> >>> Support on "My view is that SPDY layering should be separated and >>> the >>> non-HTTP layer considered as an alternative transport for HTTP >>> similar >>> to TCP, UDP, STCP, CoAP and HTCP which all seek to relay HTTP >>> messages. >>> Only the HTTP specific syntax and framing improvements should be >>> considered by the WG as input to HTTP/2 specifications." >>> >> > ... >> >> +1 >> >> BTW, we have been running HTTP over UDP (scheme as HTTP) >> successfully. >>> ... >>> >> >> Out of curiosity: who is "we"? >> >> Best regards, Julian >> >>
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2012 22:32:00 UTC