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


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>
Message-id: <CA+KJw_6SjgYOjv20=7cZhht=Wrbqqv68B+5SfJOSSMQ7D_Zosw@mail.gmail.com>
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

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