Re: HTTP/2.0 -04 candidate

++
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.
>
>