- From: Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:26:11 +0200
- To: Leif Hedstrom <leif@ogre.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm OK with either solution (forbid push when max_streams=0 or signal difference between two situations). From an implementation perspective, I don't think many public server would support sending PUSH_PROMISEs when they cannot push the actual content. 2013/7/29 Leif Hedstrom <leif@ogre.com>: > On 7/24/13 1:43 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> >> On 23 July 2013 15:38, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm a proxy guy, actually. >> >> >> I think that onus is on Roberto to more effectively motivate the need >> for this distinction. >> >> If indeed we agree that the two cases are distinct, then we probably >> need to consider ways to communicate this distinction effectively. A >> separate setting that expressly disables push promise or limits the >> number of promises might work. >> > > I'm very much in favor of this, be explicit about the client option to tell > the server to never send push promises. It avoids any potential semantics > overloading issues that we haven't yet foreseen. Plus, Roberto makes some > pretty compelling arguments as to why it can make sense for a client to set > MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS=0 but still want to see the push promises. > > -- Leif
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 08:27:05 UTC