Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-04: (with COMMENT)

On 2 August 2017 at 13:15, Willy Tarreau <> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:31:55AM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 2 August 2017 at 07:50, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
>> > I don't understand this text:
>> > "   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.
>> > "
>> >
>> > Isn't this also a limitation of 103?
>> Yes.
> Hmmm no, these are hints containing Link header fields, so they can
> reference any object including external ones just as if they were
> delivered in the final response or in the HTML header.

Oh, the claim is about the resources that can be referenced, which
could be anywhere, for which I agree.  The comparison with server push
is questionable given that server push can deliver resources in
addition to the identifier.

Part of my confusion was that "this issue" has become a little muddy
after 4 paragraphs.  I would instead say:

HTTP/2 server push [ref] can accelerate the delivery of resources, but
only resources for which the server is authoritative.  Delivering Link
header fields in a more timely fashion is more flexible and it allows
clients to learn about resources they might like to load more quickly.

Or something like that.

Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2017 05:04:17 UTC