On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > On 7 June 2012 09:43, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > > * Google is working on efforts to seriously deploy SPDY server push on > our > > properties. I can't comment further on timeline, but I hope to provide > data > > to guide our discussions, so let's not axe it just yet. > > * To my knowledge, Amazon is using it in their Silk browser. A proxy that > > uses server push is a fascinating use case, and it'd be cool to get data > on > > that first. > > I'm with Mike and Gabriel on this one. > > It would be nice if HTTP/2.0 discussions could be scoped to exclude > discussions on new protocol semantics. If you feel especially > attached to the idea of push, then my preference would be to see a new > draft on it. > Can you clarify what you mean by new protocol semantics? Does multiplexing count as a new protocol semantic? What's your proposed scope? I understand the desire to split out server push into a separate draft / extension. If we don't have data to support push, then by all means we should drop it. The main concern I have is with regards to treating push as an optional feature / extension. As many of us have stated repeatedly on this mailing list, many things that are optional simply become unusable in real, public deployments. > --Martin >
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 17:08:08 UTC