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

Re: PUSH Clarifications

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:30:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfErqqJmT7h2-XpwZT4RQ9_+FwyYi92NFzK7bHFJuv65Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:21 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
> 4) Ought to have an implicit or explicit Origin equal to the origin of
> the pushed implied GET's effective request URI...
>

Sorry, I meant this to say "Ought to have an implicit or explicit
Origin equal to the origin of the *originating requests* effective
request URI... To give a more complete example so it's clear:

I could send...

   :method = GET
   :path = /foo
   :host = example.org:80
   origin = foo.example.com:43
   allow-push-origin: abc.example.net:80, example.org:80

 The server can send a PUSH_PROMISE like...

   :method = GET
   :path = /foo/images/1.jpg
   :host = abc.example.net:80
   origin = example.org:80

- James

>
> (in other words, the push does not inherit the origin of the
> originating request...)
>
> One thing we ought to consider: some mechanism a user-agent can use to
> tell the server it is willing to accept pushed content from other
> origins.  For instance, imagine sending the following *request*:
>
>   :method = GET
>   :path = /foo
>   :host = example.org:80
>   origin = foo.example.com:43
>   allow-push-origin: abc.example.net:80, example.org:80
>
> Which states: For this stream, I'll accept pushed resources from
> abc.example.net:80 or example.org:80 and I'll RST_STREAM any attempt
> to push resources from another origin.
>
> (Obviously... where this gets a bit weird, however, is the fact that
> PUSH is hop-by-hop, which would make allow-push-origin necessarily
> hop-by-hop...)
Received on Monday, 5 August 2013 17:31:34 UTC

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