- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:57:37 +0200
- 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