W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Late change to implementation draft?

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:16:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfHRxLnOtGC1HAAn_VRun=LKN1mTrJQ_OEyr-6iOCu+sQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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).


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?
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 18:17:20 UTC

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