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

Re: PUSH Clarifications

From: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 09:34:21 +1200
Message-ID: <CAJ3HoZ30vTznvYxUciqqjSJ1H5LW3H26E8n5khQ4F=NHHzYu8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 6 August 2013 09:13, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2013-08-05 19:21, James M Snell wrote:

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

Exactly! consider conditional gets: if the UA sends a GET I-M-S or a
GET I-N-M then the server can infer likely cached resources and PUSH a
HEAD->304for those resources the client probably has, and a GET->200
for those that are definitely new.

So I think originating GET leading to PUSH of GET and HEAD makes a lot of sense.

Received on Monday, 5 August 2013 21:34:49 UTC

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