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

Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 07:56:14 +0000
To: "Patrick McManus" <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em0c8e3091-34bf-4833-a546-dfc2e3753e37@bombed>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Patrick McManus" <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>; "Mark Nottingham" 
<mnot@mnot.net>; "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 7/02/2013 8:31:38 p.m.
Subject: Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

>unwanted server pushes.

Sorry but I find the prospect of "unwanted" server pushes quite 
alarming.  This phrase and a previous mail today which indicated that 
server push would be unilateral made me write this.

Surely all server pushes should be solicited by the client first?  E.g. 
the client indicates it wants pushes.  Until it does that, it doesn't 
receive any.

Having to choke them off seems like a bad choice.

My gut tells me strongly the protocol should be "polite".  Neither end 
should ram anything significant (IOW "large") down the other end's 
throat without prior consent of the receiver (so this goes for large 
bodies on requests too).  Requests are deemed consent, so a server is 
entitled to respond.  Large request bodies are currently rude 
(unconsented) and it actually creates a lot of problems with auth.

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 07:57:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC