W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response

From: Jim Manico <jim@manico.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 09:13:11 -0700
Message-ID: <5426E217.8040101@manico.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>
CC: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Matthew Cox <macox@microsoft.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Michaela LaVan <mlavan@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Isn't this helpful for "ajaxy" applications that only need to render 
part of the page based on UI dimensions? Only the client will reliably 
know the UI screen size in order to make that decision. So asking to 
terminating the body early via client request seems reasonable. Or even 
better, a request like "please only give me the second 1/2 of the body" 
also seem prudent for this workflow.

Is this the right use case in the first place?

- Jim

On 9/27/14, 3:24 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 27 September 2014 00:16, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> What is desired here is to emit some signal that indicates: "hey...you don't need to bother sending me any more body because it's irrelevant".
> There is an alternative: recommend that clients reset their own
> request streams once the response is received.
>
> If the intent is to terminate the transmission of excess bytes of a
> request, then this achieves that goal.  The disadvantage being that
> there is less determinism from the server perspective.  The server
> still has its flow control window, I guess.
>
> I don't see any value in a new mechanism to solve this problem.
>
Received on Saturday, 27 September 2014 16:13:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC