- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:52:43 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 July 2013 09:44, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > In other > words, we say that PUSH_PROMISE MUST NOT include :host or :scheme > and that clients MUST ignore them if they are sent. I don't like the prohibition because it's too simple. Say I do have, as Will points out, a forward proxy. One huge advantage that proxy could provide is push for cross-domain resources. Or, say we do provide features for virtual hosting that would allow a CDN or aggregated hosting arrangement to become "authoritative" for multiple names. The current text says something like "make sure the server is allowed to push". Which permits both kinds of arrangement. Reducing the mandatory set of headers to just ":path" would be enough, I think. Prohibiting the others might be over-rotating.
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 16:53:10 UTC