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

Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:07:27 +0900
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNr7_0zeLP2cw-=ppsvJgRfN_mfPw=6fNQ3bU7V_MLzdKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

>
>
> ------ 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
>
> <snip>
>
>  unwanted server pushes.
>
> <snip>
>
> 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.
>
>

sure disabling them completely is possible. but even a client who wants
them in general may not want some in specific because they turn out to be
duplicates of existing cache entries.
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 16:07:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 February 2013 16:08:01 GMT