- From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:38:09 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>> >>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