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

Re: [#193] Request payloads and push

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:00:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CABaLYCuOJxPGSR+ms6Vf9o8Wt7av-tZJuGDOHV3V8rRHWsrPew@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I agree with James, except I'd limit this to GET only.

Every method we support creates one more little caveat for implementors.
 And when we have zero use cases defined it just doesn't make sense to me.
  The original design behind PUSH was for GET, so let's stick to that until
there is a clear need.

Mike



On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> FWIW, had a thread on this already on list...
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JulSep/0624.html
>
> My POV: push streams ought to be limited strictly to GET or HEAD. Period.
>
> - James
>
> 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 Tuesday, 13 August 2013 02:01:28 UTC

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