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

Re: HTTP/2.0 -04 candidate

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:20:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfYfXSV46sS2YJz-1igg6nxgsOZ2RsCa_XmU1XaxUAGnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>
++
On Jul 2, 2013 9:55 AM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 17:21:01 UTC

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