Re: Working Group Last Call: Encrypted Content-Encoding for HTTP


>>
>>I think I need to think more on the removal and discuss with my
>>colleagues
>>more. I become uncertain what the implications become in the case one
>>applies resource maps for the Out of band encoding as discussed in B.2 of
>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-http-oob-encoding-06#appendix-B

>>.2
>
>I've convinced myself that this is OK by considering resource maps as
>a form of aggressive compression for HTTP/2 server push.  I know that
>Göran and others have a different conception of this, so if you find
>that this doesn't work, we should discuss it.

My view is that there are different ways to deliver a resource map, one of
which is HTTP/2 Server Push, another delivering it as a “web resource”
using the Link header. Pro’s and con’s and depends on client realisation
and other stuff.
So not about what works and what not as I see it (still).

I expect future drafts about resource map delivery to touch on this and
trigger a proper discussion in the WG.

>
>Given that the removed paragraph doesn't actually stipulate any
>requirements, I think that we could change our view about where things
>live and simply write down those conclusions in a newer document.

+1.

>

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 10:38:44 UTC