- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:52:36 -0700
- 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... >[snip] 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