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

Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:53:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNf-m8toh_KNN0dinwCvP_+2JBKq8OWrany2sHM+c2js3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Actually, I think you're right, since the resource is identified by the URL
name (unfortunate in some ways). I was thinking that you'd want to indicate
both the canonical name for the served resource and the name used to
identify the request, but that'd be a bigger change.
-=R


On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:44 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just gave an example that uses content-negotiation so that argument
> doesn't really work. The server is crafting the request headers for an
> implied GET, so it gets to construct those request headers to be as
> specific as it wants them to be, without much need for actual
> content-negotiation.
>
> For example, suppose the server receives a request for an HTML page like
> this...
>
> GET /index.html HTTP/1.1
> Accept: text/html, image/jpeg, image/gif
>
> The server decides that it wants to push jpeg files to the client... it
> sends
>
> PUSH_PROMISE
>   :path = /images/f.jpg
>   :method = GET
>   :host: example.org
>   :if-match: "my-etag1"
>   accept: image/jpeg
>
> That's pretty darn unambiguous. I can easily check to see if I have a
> representation of "/images/f.jpg" with etag "my-etag1" and
> content-type "image/jpeg" in my local cache, without the need to have
> *any* response headers in the PUSH_PROMISE.
>
> Perhaps you have another, more specific example in mind?
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... because by then you've opened up a stream., and you're back into
> > problematic territorry.
> > PUSH_PROMISE exists because we need to indicate to the browser all of the
> > information it needs to make a determination about whether or not it
> wants
> > the stream (and to short circuit the inlining/push mechanism when it
> already
> > has what it needs!)
> > -=R
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Any content negotiation would be an appropriate example. :)
> >>
> >> You don't want to have to wait for the HEADERS frame to indicate to the
> >> client which resource it might already have (it should have the
> opportunity
> >> to RST_STREAM if it has it in cache, for instance).
> >> -=R
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:25 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Have an example handy?
> >>>
> >>> Here's an example that shows that response headers in the PUSH_PROMISE
> >>> would not be necessary... Let's say I send a PUSH_PROMISE with the
> >>> following bits of info...
> >>>
> >>> PUSH_PROMISE
> >>>   :path = /images/f.jpg
> >>>   :method = GET
> >>>   :host = example.org
> >>>   :scheme = http
> >>>   accept = image/jpeg
> >>>   if-match: "my-etag1"
> >>>   cache-control: max-age=1000
> >>>
> >>> These headers are giving me everything I would need to determine if
> >>> there is a matching resource in my local cache. I have the method, I
> >>> have the etag, I have the cache-control parameters, accept... There's
> >>> no need for response headers at this point.
> >>>
> >>> Later, once I start accepting the frames for the pushed content, I
> >>> would get something like...
> >>>
> >>> HEADERS
> >>>   :status = 200
> >>>   content-type: image/jpeg
> >>>   content-length: 123
> >>>   etag: "my-etag1"
> >>>   vary: accept
> >>>   cache-control: public
> >>>
> >>> On the off chance that the PUSH_PROMISE doesn't give me what I need,
> >>> the follow on HEADERS frame will give me the rest.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> > Depending on how the request might have been been constructed,
> response
> >>> > headers may be necessary to identify the resource in the cache, as
> >>> > compared
> >>> > to the resource specified in the HTML (I'm thinking about vary:
> stuff).
> >>> >
> >>> > -=R
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Let's take a step back and consider what a pushed stream is...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> A pushed stream is essentially an "Implied GET". This means that a
> >>> >> server is going to assume that the client was going to send a GET
> for
> >>> >> the pushed resource. This also means that the server has to make
> some
> >>> >> assumptions about the make up of that implied GET.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Now, consider how HTTP caching works. When a cache receives a
> request
> >>> >> for a resource, how does it determine whether or not it has a
> >>> >> representation of the resource already available? Does it look at
> the
> >>> >> request headers or the response headers? Obviously, it looks at the
> >>> >> request headers. It uses the response headers when populating the
> >>> >> cache.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So, if we look at the pushed resource sent by the server, what we
> need
> >>> >> is for A) the server to first let us know about the implied GET
> >>> >> request.. which means pushing down a set of request headers then B)
> >>> >> the server to send the actual resource, which means pushing down the
> >>> >> response headers.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Already in our design for pushed resources, we have the server
> sending
> >>> >> a PUSH_PROMISE frame that contains a header block, followed by a
> >>> >> HEADERS frame that also contains a headers block. It stands to
> reason
> >>> >> that the PUSH_PROMISE frame would contain the set of request headers
> >>> >> that the server is assuming for the implied GET. These are delivered
> >>> >> to the client, which uses those to determine whether or not a cached
> >>> >> representation of the resource is already available (just as any
> cache
> >>> >> would do using the request headers). The server would then send it's
> >>> >> response headers in a HEADERS frame, just as it would any response
> to
> >>> >> any other kind of GET.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Two examples to show how this naturally fits... First, let's look
> at a
> >>> >> normal GET request sent by the client to the server...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Client                 Server
> >>> >> ------                 ------
> >>> >>   |                        |
> >>> >>   | ---------------------> |
> >>> >>   |   HEADERS              |
> >>> >>   |     GET                |
> >>> >>   |     /images/f.jpg      |
> >>> >>   |     If-Match: etag1    |
> >>> >>   |     Accept: image/jpeg |
> >>> >>   |                        |
> >>> >>   | <--------------------- |
> >>> >>   |   HEADERS              |
> >>> >>   |     200                |
> >>> >>   |     Content-Type:      |
> >>> >>   |       image/jpeg       |
> >>> >>   |     Content-Length:    |
> >>> >>   |       123              |
> >>> >>   |                        |
> >>> >>   | <--------------------- |
> >>> >>   |   DATA....DATA....     |
> >>> >>   |                        |
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Now consider the same resource being pushed by the server using
> >>> >> PUSH_PROMISE...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Client                 Server
> >>> >> ------                 ------
> >>> >>   |                        |
> >>> >>   | <--------------------- |
> >>> >>   |   PUSH_PROMISE         |
> >>> >>   |     GET                |
> >>> >>   |     /images/f.jpg      |
> >>> >>   |     If-Match: etag1    |
> >>> >>   |     Accept: image/jpeg |
> >>> >>   |                        |
> >>> >>   | <--------------------- |
> >>> >>   |   HEADERS              |
> >>> >>   |     200                |
> >>> >>   |     Content-Type:      |
> >>> >>   |       image/jpeg       |
> >>> >>   |     Content-Length:    |
> >>> >>   |       123              |
> >>> >>   |                        |
> >>> >>   | <--------------------- |
> >>> >>   |   DATA....DATA....     |
> >>> >>   |                        |
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Note that the only difference here is the direction and type of the
> >>> >> first frame. Everything else is identical. The PUSH_PROMISE contains
> >>> >> everything the client needs to determine whether or not it already
> has
> >>> >> the resource in it's local cache (request URI, etag,
> content-type...).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> There's no need to get any more complicated than this. We already
> >>> >> require two distinct header blocks for every request. We already
> send
> >>> >> two distinct header blocks for each pushed stream. We already
> indicate
> >>> >> that a pushed stream is an implied GET. To make it work, we simply
> >>> >> state that the PUSH_PROMISE contains the Request headers that the
> >>> >> server has assumed for the implied GET request, while the HEADERS
> >>> >> frame sent later contains the Response headers. If the request
> headers
> >>> >> in the PUSH_PROMISE end up not being adequate enough to properly
> >>> >> determine if the resource is already cached, then we treat it as
> just
> >>> >> another cache miss.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Martin Thomson
> >>> >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/153
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > The current text describes PUSH_PROMISE as having a few request
> >>> >> > headers, plus some response headers, but it's quite vague.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > I think that if this is going to be properly workable across a
> wide
> >>> >> > range of uses with lots of different headers, PUSH_PROMISE needs
> to
> >>> >> > include two sets of headers: the ones that it overrides from the
> >>> >> > associated request (:path being foremost of those) and the ones
> that
> >>> >> > it provides as a "preview" of the response (e.g., ETag might allow
> >>> >> > caches to determine if they were interested in the rest of the
> >>> >> > response).
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2013 05:54:25 UTC

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