RE: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-02

More fundamentally, we have this mechanism for dropping a request and its response on a client, but don't have a taxonomy of what sorts of request/response pairs clients should expect and what they should do with them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:w@1wt.eu] 
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 2:55 PM
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>; Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-02

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 04:06:49PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>    HTTP/2 ([RFC7540]) server push can be used as a solution to this
>    issue, but has its own limitations.  The responses that can be pushed
>    using HTTP/2 are limited to those belonging to the same origin.
>    Also, it is impossible to send only the links using server push.
> 
> That's not clear to me. We could HTTP/2-push a HEAD response with link 
> header fields, no? Or a GET response which has links in the payload...

Indeed. Probably the wording could be relaxed, saying it's "non-trivial"
or "not straightforward" instead of "impossible".

Willy

Received on Sunday, 21 May 2017 20:26:39 UTC