- From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:18:36 +0000
- To: Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
These settings are just peer to peer, and it's possible to take advantage of them even if they are not supported end to end. For example, in the configuration: Client -> proxy -> server The client can set SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH to false, the proxy can set it to true. The server will push resources to the proxy, which can: - Cancel the pushed resources - Accept the pushed resources and cache them: it will be able to respond directly when the client will be asking them. Hervé. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stuart Douglas [mailto:stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com] > Sent: mardi 30 septembre 2014 04:58 > To: Martin Thomson > Cc: Robert Collins; HTTP Working Group > Subject: Re: SETTINGS frame - not documented as peer-to-peer only > > I think the real issue here is that SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH and the > proposed SETTINGS_WEBSOCKET_CAPABLE are really end to end settings > rather than just peer to peer. You need both endpoints and all > intermediaries to support them for them for them to be used, and at the > moment we have no way of discovering this. All you can really do is > attempting a push / websocket connection and hope it works. > > All other settings make sense as peer to peer settings, but I really > don't think these two do. > > Stuart > > Martin Thomson wrote: > > On 29 September 2014 14:17, Robert Collins<robertc@robertcollins.net> > wrote: > >> When reading the websockets draft, it occured to me that perhaps I > >> misunderstand SETTINGS. AIUI it is peer to peer, not end to end. > > > > How else could this possibly work? > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 09:19:11 UTC