Re: Late change to implementation draft?

Agree on the first.
On the second: PUSH_PROMISE isn't fully baked (it won't be until it is
thrown on the fires of a real implementation and we discover the error(s)
of the recipe).

-=R


On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> The discussion on PUSH_PROMISE leads me to two conclusions:
>
>  . PUSH_PROMISE need only contain *request* headers
>
>  . PUSH_PROMISE isn't baked
>
> The first is what I'd like to confirm.  Without it, I don't think that
> we'll get good results from testing push.  Should I make this change
> in the first implementation draft?
>
>