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: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:57:37 +0200
Message-ID: <52016341.9080109@gmx.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-08-06 18:07, James M Snell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2013-08-06 00:15, James M Snell wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Oh right.. then how about PUSH_PROMISE(:method=FOO) ? ... I know,
>>> gotta go check the registry because there is no reliable means of
>>> determining if some method is safe at runtime...
>>>
>>> The end result ends up being: the only methods that an implementation
>>> can absolutely guarantee will work with server push are GET and HEAD
>>> given that those are the only ones that we know for certain are
>>> safe... so why not just make it clear up front: a push is always an
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-11.html#updated.registry.contents>
>>
>
> Well... yes, there are the PROPFIND, SEARCH and REPORT methods which
> are both safe and idempotent... however, given that PUSH_PROMISE gives
> us no means of sending an implied payload along with the implied

Yes, that's what needs to get fixed.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 20:58:07 UTC

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