- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 05:15:34 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints@ietf.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:31:55AM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 2 August 2017 at 07:50, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > > I don't understand this text: > > " HTTP/2 ([RFC7540]) server push can be used as a solution to this > > issue, but has its own limitations. The responses that can be pushed > > using HTTP/2 are limited to those belonging to the same origin. > > " > > > > Isn't this also a limitation of 103? > > Yes. Hmmm no, these are hints containing Link header fields, so they can reference any object including external ones just as if they were delivered in the final response or in the HTML header. > The claim about h2 is also incorrect: > > The server MUST include a value in the ":authority" pseudo-header > field for which the server is authoritative (see Section 10.1). A > client MUST treat a PUSH_PROMISE for which the server is not > authoritative as a stream error (Section 5.4.2) of type > PROTOCOL_ERROR. > > -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-8.2 Indeed, nice catch! While functionally speaking it's almost the same, it would be better to place correct claims in the summary :-) Willy
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2017 03:16:08 UTC