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 23:25:11 +0200
Message-ID: <520169B7.7080002@gmx.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-08-06 23:03, James M Snell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I hear you but I disagree ;-)
>
> Perhaps there is a non-theoretical, somewhat-plausible use-case that
> cannot be addressed using GET/HEAD that I'm missing here? If not, lets
> draw a line in the sand with GET/HEAD and move on.
>
> - James

We need to decide whether PUSH is limited to GET (/HEAD), or extensible. 
If it is supposed to work with other methods (and that's what the rough 
consensus in the interim meeting (*)) was, then we should prepare for 
safe methods with payloads no. If we do not, we'll need to rev the base 
protocol which seems to be a very bad idea.

Best regards, Julian

(*) to be confirmed on the mailing list
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 21:38:01 UTC

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