- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:42:12 -0700
- To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1... the *only* case I would extend it to HEAD is if the originating request is HEAD, which does have a fairly clear use case... and makes sense in principle. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote: > I agree with James, except I'd limit this to GET only. > > Every method we support creates one more little caveat for implementors. > And when we have zero use cases defined it just doesn't make sense to me. > The original design behind PUSH was for GET, so let's stick to that until > there is a clear need. > > Mike > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> FWIW, had a thread on this already on list... >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JulSep/0624.html >> >> My POV: push streams ought to be limited strictly to GET or HEAD. Period. >> >> - James >> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Martin Thomson >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> > There's been something of a long thread on github about this topic, >> > that Will was unsuccessful in moving over here. Let me try again. >> > >> > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/193 >> > >> > Julian summarized the issue quite cogently as: >> >> [...] HTTP/1.1 allows safe methods with payload, so if we decide that >> >> in HTTP/2.0 we want to allow PUSH for safe methods, we shouldn't >> >> rule out that they could have payloads. >> > >> > I'm just going to throw out the obvious counter argument here, namely: >> > >> > HTTP/2.0 doesn't allow push for safe methods, it allows push for safe >> > methods that do not have request bodies. >> > >> > And then we see what happens. Commence! >> > >> >
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 02:42:59 UTC