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

Re: [#193] Request payloads and push

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:52:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbchZ2YZ2LB1BZqe-N6MV3OU3sQVs80WRoDuQrah9RB8zQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> In any case, any of the potential changes above feel like significant
> increases in complexity.
> Do we have use-cases for pushing-a-request-body that would show improvement
> in some dimension commensurate with the complexity?
> I can't think of any, but I'm not as well versed in such esoteric methods...

One example given in the previous thread on this topic was pushing a
WebDAV PROPFIND, which is a safe/idempotent request that bears a
payload. I personally don't find this case interesting at all,
however, and it certainly isn't compelling enough to justify the
additional complexity.

- James

> -=R
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> There's been something of a long thread on github about this topic,
>> that Will was unsuccessful in moving over here.  Let me try again.
>> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/193
>> Julian summarized the issue quite cogently as:
>> > [...] HTTP/1.1 allows safe methods with payload, so if we decide that
>> > in HTTP/2.0 we want to allow PUSH for safe methods, we shouldn't
>> > rule out that they could have payloads.
>> I'm just going to throw out the obvious counter argument here, namely:
>> HTTP/2.0 doesn't allow push for safe methods, it allows push for safe
>> methods that do not have request bodies.
>> And then we see what happens.  Commence!
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 19:53:22 UTC

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