Re: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2

>> Not something that we've implemented yet, but it's a valid scenario.

Pushing 304 works both in Chrome and Firefox:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2F2m0rSqGCVWFJnTzRWOWFWQmc , we have
been doing it for some time.  But I agree that the HTTP/2 spec is very
vague regarding PUSH and cache interaction, I wish that could be
improved....


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> We had talked at one point about intentionally pushing very specific
> conditional requests which would always have a 304 response.  The client,
> upon receipt, would either know that the resource in the cache was fresh
> (and could update cache lifetimes) or realize that an object they will need
> is not in the cache, and request it.
>
> Not something that we've implemented yet, but it's a valid scenario.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 8:19 PM
> To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
> Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2
>
> On 3 February 2016 at 07:26, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> > That is because PUSH by itself cannot do conditional requests.
> > Consider it to be the equivalent for a non-conditional request that
> > always gets the 200 status response with full new object and new expiry
> details.
>
> This isn't strictly true.  You can server push a conditional request, and
> in fact it can be advantageous to do so.
>
> Of course, the server doesn't always know enough about a client to make
> the *right* conditional request.
>
>