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

Re: PUSH Clarifications

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 23:13:12 +0200
Message-ID: <52001568.7030909@gmx.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-08-05 19:21, James M Snell wrote:
> Saw the comments in the github repo issues regarding PUSH and safe
> methods discussed in Hamburg... I gave some comments over there, but
> given that it affects technical design and not just editorial, I
> wanted to echo those same comments here on list...
>
> I'm not 100% sure where the conversation ended up in Hamburg, but.. in
> my opinion.. a PUSH...
>
> 1) Ought to ALWAYS be either an implied GET or HEAD, sending a
> PUSH_PROMISE with a :method header field that specifies anything other
> than GET or HEAD ought to be a stream error. This keeps things as
> simple as possible without forcing us to get into dealing with
> possibly weird edge cases caused by unknown extension methods.

Such as?

> 2) Ought to only be an implied HEAD request if the originating request
> is also a HEAD request. Otherwise, the PUSH is always a GET.

Why?

> 3) Ought to only be sent when the response has a 2xx status code. It
> does not make much sense at all to send a PUSH when the status code is
> [3-5]xx.

I think we discussed and liked an idea of HEAD->304 to update cache meta 
data.

> ...


Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 5 August 2013 21:13:42 UTC

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