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

Re: [#153] PUSH_PROMISE headers

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:31:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXNPZO+gETgC8th-bAFGA3rs8mLr4XKz_rtT3Nk=ai4Eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 1 July 2013 13:20, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's please not conflate compression and push.. they really are
> unrelated to one another.

Ahh, but all optimizations ultimately do that sort of conflation.
You'll note that it was pure speculation, with a "not-now-please"
qualifier.

I think that we have an answer to this question already.  Request
headers have to be sufficient to determine if a cache has the answer,
otherwise you would always require validation.  (And push sort-of
end-runs the validation thing too.)

The only model we need is: PUSH_PROMISE == "this is the request I
synthesized for you".  Then, we can do all sorts of things to control
how that synthesis is controlled.  Though "not-now-please" still seems
appropriate.
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 20:31:32 UTC

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