- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:53:24 +0000
- To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, tom <zs68j2ee@gmail.com>
In message <CABaLYCusRpEs7bicEq+_jViW5k-X9ehip=RJe8wD51Z-B-UH2A@mail.gmail.com> , Mike Belshe writes: >But seriously, who are these clients which will reject the pushes? I think this may be asking the wrong question. Yes, there will be clients which reject server-push, either because they only implemented the easy part of the specs, or because the voices from the tinfoil hat tells them to, but they are not important. The people who will have a problem with server-push are the security people, and the people who have to deal with the complexity it introduces. As I understand the desire for server-push it basically is this: Client: Give me "index.html" Server: Here it comes, and here are "style.css" and "logo.png" which you'll also need. That makes a lot of sense, but I would solve it this way: Client: Give me "index.html" Server: Here is "index.zip" which contains "index.html" and some other objects you'll need. No protocol complexity, the objects are bound together and we get compression too. (.zip is just an example though, there may be better designs, as I assume interleaving might be desired ?) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 14:53:57 UTC