W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Accept Push Policy draft

From: Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:06:54 +0100
To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <562FBD3E.9060904@crf.canon.fr>
Cory,

On 27/10/15 01:30, Cory Benfield wrote:
>
> > On 27 Oct 2015, at 02:54, Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
> wrote:
> >
> > The Accept Push Policy Draft [1] is a proposal for enabling a client
> and a server negotiate how the server uses HTTP/2 push. This is
> realized by defining possible "push policies", i.e. behaviours, that
> the server can use while responding to the client's request.
> >
> > These ideas took their origin in the MPEG DASH FDH group, which is
> looking on how DASH can take advantages of bidirectional protocols
> such as HTTP/2 and WebSocket.
> >
> > The draft is a proposal to take these ideas and make them available
> for wider usage, keeping only the "push policies" that can be used by
> any generic HTTP/2 server.
> >
> > Comments are welcome !
> >
> > Hervé.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ruellan-http-accept-push-policy-00
> >
>
>
> Hervé,
>
> My first impression on this draft is really positive: it seems like an
> extremely useful header field, and potentially extremely flexible. I
> have some notes:
>
> - Section 3: Your italics didn’t render out, you have explicit
> underscores. I assume that’s not intentional.

I'll check that for the next draft.

> - Section 3.1: I think the Accept-Push-Policy should be extended to
> support a comma-separated list. It seems insufficiently flexible to
> allow only one push policy to be requested, especially if
> custom/private push-policies are defined. More generally, a
> comma-separated list will help ensure that push policies are kept
> simple and tightly scoped, rather than encouraging policies to be
> monolithic to allow multiple behaviours.

I we have only a small set of push-policies, requesting only one policy 
in the Accept-Push-Policy header may be sufficient. However, I rather 
agree with you that being able to specify several push-policies 
(potentially with a preference parameter) adds much more flexibility.


>
> Those are my initial notes, but I’m going to keep a close eye on this
> draft! Great work!

Thanks,

>
> Cory
>

Hervé
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2015 18:07:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:40 UTC