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

Eric, Martin, Willy, thank you for your suggestions.

I agree that the original text was incorrect in the limitation of what
can be pushed, and also that the text was confusing.

I've filed a PR (https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/375)
that tries to address the issue, based on Martin's suggestions (thank
you for the text!).

Please let me know what you think.


2017-08-02 14:15 GMT+09:00 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:03:53PM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 2 August 2017 at 13:15, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:31:55AM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> >> On 2 August 2017 at 07:50, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> 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.
>
> Indeed. Maybe it should be presented like a complement and not an
> alternative. Some sites might want to continue to deliver very small
> resources using PUSH and larger ones using 103 for example (so that
> clients can cache them and in order to avoid wasting bandwidth).
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes probably something like this would be better.
>
> Willy
>



-- 
Kazuho Oku

Received on Friday, 4 August 2017 03:49:36 UTC