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

Re: Some thoughts on server push and client pull

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:16:40 +1000
Cc: Alek Storm <alek.storm@gmail.com>, Jonathan Silvera <jsilvera@microsoft.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Matthew Cox <macox@microsoft.com>, Ivan Pashov <ivanpash@microsoft.com>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <1C5701A7-895A-4BFC-8231-BC10BF9F003E@mnot.net>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>

On 08/06/2012, at 11:46 AM, Mike Belshe wrote:

> I'm excited to hear from Google, Yahoo, Tornado, and Cotendo/Akamai that there is research into server push.  I see no reason to cut it when it is actively being worked on; my proposal to cut was based on the belief nobody was trying.  I stand corrected!
> To those against the more speculative nature of server push features:  We won't get another shot at protocol semantics for 15 years.  So, if there is real work ongoing here, we should let it go further.
> To those that are doing research:  Please keep in mind that time is short.  The rest of the protocol is ready to move forward now, and the choices we make can be greatly changed based on whether or not push is included as part of the core. 
> To mnot:  Perhaps at the next meeting we can discuss some timeframes around various concepts like server push so that those doing implementations can have some guidance for dates.

Well, we need to come to agreement and re-charter, but I'd say we'll be able to have this kind of discussion in Vancouver, yes.

WRT SPDY and server push, I'd suggest keeping it in, but making sure it's separable, so that the decision can be delayed until you have more data.


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 07:17:13 UTC

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