W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Some thoughts on server push and client pull

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 10:07:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYhiKeW03-=0KzAd3=RbPe9F3fSu2FGGCWn+-5eaWxCPxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:00 UTC