W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:28:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbceLmh4dawBQjqVyF4BeF92sfSSVMXJMjYY+txPh0zGTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
That's why review is good :) the requirement upgrade was unintentional. If
possible, can you make a note on the pull request?
On Jun 28, 2013 5:11 PM, "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  In draft-ietf-httpbis-http2.xml:****
>
> >  ****
>
> > +        <t>****
>
> > +          The server can choose to send one or more push promises****
>
> > +          associated with the response. These notify the client that ****
>
> > +          the server intends to deliver additional resources to the client****
>
> > +          as specified in <xref target="PushResources" />. If the server****
>
> > +          sends PUSH_PROMISE frames, those MUST be sent prior to sending ****
>
> > +          any header blocks or DATA frames that reference the promised resources.****
>
> > +          For instance, if the server receives a request for a document****
>
> > +          containing embedded links to multiple image files, and the ****
>
> > +          server chooses to push those additional images to the client, ****
>
> > +          all of the push promises MUST be sent prior to sending the DATA frames ****
>
> > +          that contain the image links. Likewise, if the server pushes ****
>
> > +          resources referenced by the header block (i.e. using Link headers), ****
>
> > +          the server MUST send the push promises before sending the header****
>
> > +          block.****
>
> You're upgrading a SHOULD in the current spec to a MUST. Has this been
> discussed on-list?****
>
> Speaking as the http.sys owner for Windows, this concerns me. We don't
> know the content of the entity body fragments or response headers an
> application hands us, only the order. The only way we can definitively
> comply with this MUST is to make all PUSH_PROMISE frames precede all DATA
> or HEADERS frames. As a SHOULD, we're free to leave proper behavior to the
> app using our APIs, while maintaining non-optional protocol compliance at
> our layer. ****
>
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2013 00:29:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC